•

THE LIVES OF THE POPES

VOL. IV.

THE

LIVES OF THE POPES

IN THE EARLY MIDDLE AGES

BY THE

REV. HORACE K. MANN

"De gente Anglorum, qui maxime familiares Apostolica? Sedis semper existunt" {Gesta Abb. Fontanel. A.D. 747-752, ap. M.G. SS. II. 289).

HEAD MASTER OF ST. CUTHBERT's GRAMMAR SCHOOL, NEWCASTLE-ON-TYNE CORRESPONDING MEMBER OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY OF HISTORY OF SPAIN

THE POPES IN THE DAYS OF FEUDAL ANARCHY

Formosus TO Damasus II. 891-1048

SEtH

BV

V'-:-

o^TE

»"

avvct

VOL. IV — 891-999

KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH, TRUBNER, & CO., LTD.

DRYDEN HOUSE, GERRARD STREET

LONDON, W.

1910

The Terms on which this work is supplied to the Booksellers do not admit of discount to the public.

2x

1070

HIS ALMA MATER

ST cuthbert's college, ushaw THIS VOLUME

55 respecttullg 2>eDicatefc

BY

A GRATEFUL SON

PREFACE.

If edification were the sole, or even the principal, object which I had in view in undertaking to write the biographies of the Popes of the early Middle Ages, I might perhaps have hesitated about publishing the present series. But I wish to pursue a higher end than that of indulging in a style of historical writing which is supposed to be calculated to edify a certain type of mind. I would fulfil what I regard as a command laid upon me by the late glorious Head of the Church, and strive to make known the history of the Popes of Rome. And, as it was a cardinal maxim with Leo XIII. that truth would not injure the Church, I am convinced that he would not have had the Lives of some Popes written and the Lives of others left unrecorded, nor would he have wished to see some of their deeds blazoned forth and others buried in eternal oblivion.

I know, too, that one of the greatest of the predecessors of Leo XIII. laid it down that "if scandal be taken from the enunciation of truth, it is better to allow the scandal to arise than to leave the word of truth unrecorded."1

1 St. Gregory I., " Si autem de veritate scandalum sumitur, utilius permittitur nasci scandalum quam Veritas relinquatur." Horn, in Ezech., i.} horn. 7.

viii PREFACE

Have I not also the assurance of St. Leo I., the Great, that "the dignity of Peter is not lost even in an unworthy successor"?1 Besides, I believe that such as have the patience to read the following pages will probably conclude that the scandals of the Papacy of the Dark Age are not so numerous as they had imagined, and that excuses not a few serve to palliate most of those which did take place.2 Finally, as the history "of the medieval Papacy" is a "glorious" one,8 it would appear to have been necessary for it to have its dark pages in order that its bright ones may be fully appreciated. It seems as if we must become acquainted with the tree of the knowledge of good and evil before we can properly appraise what is perfect.

To the critics who have expressed widely different views on the literary style in which I have dressed my biographies, I would say that were it not too unconventional, I would follow the lead of an old Icelandic historian, and call this work a horn-spoon, " because methinks there is much good stuff therein ; but I know that there is need that it be beautified, and I shall, as long as I am able, busy myself with the mending thereof."4

It would not be becoming in me to bring to a conclusion the short preface to this volume without thanking those who have helped me to make it. I must offer my warm thanks to those who have so patiently read over the proof- sheets for me, to C. 1 [art, Esq., B.A., and to F. F. Urquhart,

1 " Petri dignitas ctiam in indigno haerede non deficit." Serm. 3. n. 3.

1 Rome "was perpetually rent by factions (in the tenth century), which are in great measure responsible for the odium which a pre- judiced criticism has so often attached to tl institution.'5 Hill, A History of European IHploituuy, i. 176, London, 1905. lungham, The Monuments of Christian Ronn, p. I.

* So writ* y thirteenth-century author of the Lives of the

early bishops of Iceland, a; m% i. 426. He was a

very original writer, and called his book H xktr.

PREFACE

IX

Esq., M.A., and to those who have helped me with the illustrations, to the Rev. A. Chadwick and H. Burton, to A. Harding, Esq., and the Cavaliere C. Serafini. Nor must I forget to include among those to whom my gratitude is due, the authorities of the Public Library of the city of Newcastle-on-Tyne, and of St. Cuthbert's College, Ushaw.

H. K. MANN.

The Arch of Septimius Severus in 1594, showing remains of medieval fortifications. (From Huelsen's The Roman Forum.)

A LIST OF THE PRINCIPAL ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS VOLUME.

Jaffe, or Regesta . . = Regesta Pontiftcum Romanorum, ed.

Jaffe, 2nd ed., Lipsise, 1885. Labbe = Sacrosancta Concilia, ed. Labbe

and Cossart, Paris, 167 1. L. P., Anastasius, or the ) = Liber Pontif calls, 2 vols., ed. L.

Book of the Popes ) Duchesne, Paris, 1886.

M. G. H., or Pertz . = Monumenta Germanice Historica,

either Scriptores (M. G. SS.) or Epistolce (M. G. Epp.) or Poetce (M. G. PP.).

P. G = Patrologia Grceca, ed. Migne, Paris.

P. L = Patrologia Latina, ed. Migne, Paris.

R. I. SS. . . = Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, ed.

Muratori, Milan, 1723 ff. R. S., following an \ = The edition of the Chronicles, etc., edition of a book > published under the direction of

) the Master of the Rolls.

The sign f placed before a date indicates that the date in question is the year of the death of the person after whose name the sign and date are placed.

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

		PAGE
Preface,		vii
Introduction, .....		I
Formosus (891-896), ....		42
Boniface VI. (April? 896),.		73
Stephen (VI.) VII. (896-897),		. 76
Romanus (897),		86
Theodore II. (897), ....		88
John IX. (898-900), ....		9i
Benedict IV. (900-903),		103
Leo V (903). (Christopher — Antipope, 9	03-904),	in
Sergius III. (904-911), .		119
Anastasius III. (911-913), .		143
Landus (913-914),		147
John X. (914-928), .		149
Leo VI. (928-928 or 9), . . .		188
Stephen (VII.) VIII. (929-931), .		189
John XI. (931-936), ....		191
Leo VII. (936-939), ....		205
Stephen (VIII.) IX. (939-942), .		212
Marinus II. (942-946),		218

xiv CONTENTS

PAGE

ACAPITUS II. (946-955), 224

JOHN XII. (955-964) 241

Benedict V. (964), 273

John XIII. (965-972). 282

Benedict VI. (972-974), 305

Benedict VII. (974-983 315

John XIV. (983-984) 33o

Boniface VII. (Antipope?) (984-985), -339

John XV. (985-996) 343

Gregory V. (996-999) 389

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.

Plan of Rome, ....			Frontispiece
				PAGE
The Arch of Septimius Severus,				ix
The Arch of Janus Quadrifrons,				to face 17
The Arch of Titus,				„ 27
Pope Formosus, portrait of, .				» 47
Coins of Formosus,				72
Coins of Stephen VIL, .				• 85
Coin of Romanus, .				. 87
Christopher, portrait of, .				to face in
S. Pier in Grado, interior of,				M 117
John X., portrait of,				,1 149
Coin of John XI., .				190
Coin of John XI., .				204
Agapitus II., portrait of,				to face 225
Cenotaph of Benedict V.,				11 279
John XV., .				• 388

INTRODUCTION

Before we proceed to give the details of the Lives of those Europe in Popes who held the See of Rome during the period when Age." Italy sank lower in the scale of civilisation than at any other period of its history, it will be of advantage to say something as to the causes which brought about the evils of that age. We would say something of an age when the supreme Pontiffs of Rome, dragged down with Italy, were so degraded, in part by the treatment to which they were subjected, and in part by the vices of some of those whom brute force thrust into the chair of Peter, that one might have been tempted to believe that their authority must for ever have come to an end.

To the reader who has in mind the facts recorded in the preceding volume of this work, these intoductory remarks may scarcely be necessary ; but they will at least serve to impress still more upon him that the scandals in high places which he will soon see, if he continues his reading, were due rather to external circumstances than to any internal decay of the institution of the Papacy itself.

The period we would discuss — the tenth century and the first half of the eleventh — is often spoken of as the " un- happy or obscure, the iron or leaden age." And for many

reasons it richly deserves the hard names which have been VOL. IV. i

I N TRODUCTION

given to it ; but it must at once be noted that it is very often the subject of undue generalisation. It is frequently asserted that, for Europe at large, it was the blackest period of its long life. No doubt, when the head suffers grievously, the body cannot be in a very satisfactory condition. For Italy, and for Rome — the head and centre at this time both of Western civilisation and of Christianity — the epoch in question was assuredly the most miserable of all the times they have passed through. But, though most of the other countries of Europe were in anything but a flourishing state, the second half of the tenth century saw them in a much better condition than the first half, and they had seen darker days some three centuries before. And so we find that poch witnessed at least a temporary revival of learning and discipline in England through the noble efforts of St. Dunstan and his monastic brethren.1 France, indeed, suffered almost as much as Italy at this time. Its historians are agreed that it never sank so low as in the tenth century. Yet even in France the very beginning of the tenth century saw the foundation of the monastery of Cluny,2 the influence of which, in the eleventh century, was to be the leaven which was destined to permeate and elevate the whole mass of Kuropcan corruption. But, apart from what Fulbert of Chartrcs called "the strong capitol of the monastic life,"

1 Cf vol. i. c. 8 ofth.it fascinating work of Sister Dranc, Christian Schools and Scholars, and the introduction to Hock's Life of Pope French trai, q the original German

is the one here cited.

uniian (988-1072), who, as papal legate in

Ulldei the Abbot Hugh, writes (1. vi. ep. 4): "Vidi

im MuatuorKvangeliorum fiuentisirriguum,imototidem

virtutum. . . . Et quid alhid Cluniacense

mooattrnum. nis: »mini plenum dixerim, ubi velut acervus est

calettiutn tegetum chorus tot it ntulIn nmn.w horum."

Cf. the first five letters of this book of Damian s letters. Cf chap. v.

(the Chmiac Reformation) in Tout's The Empire and the Pafiacy

(91*1273).

INTRODUCTION 3

the Church in France was in as miserable a condition as the State.1 Christian Spain, however, on the other hand, advanced its frontiers during this age of woe ; and Germany, which under powerful rulers broke the violence of the barbarian invaders, aided by its great bishops and by the comparatively prosperous state of its monastic institu- tions, experienced a decided advance in civilisation gener- ally.2 It was through Germany that Divine Providence seems to have worked in effecting the reform of the Church in its head.

The life of the Spirit, too, was not altogether dead in the tenth century. There were saintly men in every land, and great saints in some. St. Bernard of Menthon, " the apostle of the Alps," the founder of the hospices on the Great and the Little St. Bernard, was one; St. Odo of Cluny, not to mention his three saintly successors, was another. England produced St. Dunstan, St. Oswald, and others. Italy profited by the presence of St. Nilus, the famous Basilian monk, and St. Adalbert was a source of light to the Slavs. Earnest and zealous men spread the truths of Christianity into countries where they had not as yet penetrated. And the darkness of the tenth century was lightened towards its close by the conversion of the Northmen, the Hungarians, and some more remote Slavonic peoples whose ignorance had not been illumined by the great apostles of the Slavs, SS. Cyril and Methodius.3

1 " Nee est prsesul in Galliis cujus viscera tangat affectio pietatis, aut zelus sacras legis inflammet. . . . O derelicta, O moesta, O desolata Galliarum ecclesia." Ep. 2, an. 1003, ap. P. L., t. 141, p. 192. Cf. Odo of Cluny, Collationes, ii., c. 6, ap. P. Z., t. 133.

2 Christian Schools, i. c. 9, p. 324 to the end of the chapter. Kurth, Notger de Liege, i., p. 1 ff. ; Paris, 1905.

3 See Pardiac, Hist, de S. Abbon, p. 44 ff., for a list of the saints of the tenth century.

4 INTRODUCTION

Hut if not the darkest day for Europe in general, the tenth century, with the first half of the eleventh, was confessedly the blackest night for Italy, and for Rome and its rulers. The causes which brought about the degradation of the Papacy were, to a large extent, those which brought about the fall of the empire. First of these was the barbarians. Under the strong rule of Charlemagne, civilisation had grown apace in Europe. Religion, and consequently learning, flourished under the protection of that great ruler; and, broadly speaking, till the fall of the Frankish empire north Italy at least enjoyed a term of peace and prosperity.1 The strong right arm of Charlemagne had pushed back the borders of the barbarians, whose inroads were so fatal to the cause of civilisation, and who hung the empire ready to take advantage of the smallest symptoms of weakness which it might exhibit. These symptoms were not long in showing themselves. Following the example set by Charlemagne himself, the empire was progressively split up by his descendants among their children ; and, worse still, those who succeeded him in the title of emperor were destitute either of physical vitality, mental ability, or both. The reins of government slipped from their nerveless grasp under the pressure of the barbarians from without, and of the turbulent dukes and counts from within. The nobility grew unruly, and the

' Kffpw Hal., t. v. p. 225 : "Francis regnum tenentibus . . . rt justis Francorum imperiis .... cum ad sobolis mcrcmentum, et cultum axlificiorum ct rcctarum disciplinarian ornatum, lum, in primis, ad religionis sanctitatem, et imperii dignitatem profecit tfjjjjf Rf before Sigonius, Hugh, abbot of Farfa, had written

1 p. Af. G. SS., xi.) : " Qui (Francorum reges) P»« * ■ Ungobardorum imperatorum Italicum regnum

strenuc potcnterque per multa spatia temporum honorifice guber- namnt, icclcsiat Dei exaltando, paupcres recreando, justitiam et legem ubtqoe adimplendo." Hugh wrote at the beginning of the eleventh century.

INTRODUCTION 5

inroads of Normans, Saracens, and Slavs became incessant. Bad enough before, things became much worse on the deposition of the last Carolingian emperor, Charles the Fat, in 887. The empire was split up into seven kingdoms, and soon into more than fifty feudal sovereignties. In bringing these kingdoms into being, racial and linguistic tendencies and pressing local1 needs certainly had their share. But beyond doubt the greatest factor in producing them was the personal ambition of those who became their rulers, of men who by their birth considered themselves all equal.2 And " the ambition of the powerful, together with the deplorable miseries of the times," — we have it on the authority of the famous Gerbert (ep. 130) — "turned right into wrong." Already, on the division of the empire at the time of the death of Louis the Pious, Florus, the deacon of Lyons, had, in verse not wanting in pathos, bewailed its partition. He had called on the lofty hills and the deep valleys to mourn over the race of the Franks who had fallen from empire. " A beautiful empire once flourished under a glorious crown. Then was there one Prince and one subject people. Every town had its laws and its judges. . . . The word of salvation was preached to all ; and the youth everywhere studied the sacred Scriptures and the liberal arts. . . . The name and dignity of empire lost, we have now kinglets for kings ; instead of an empire, its fragments. ... Of the general good no one has a thought. It is each one for himself. . . . The bishops can no longer hold their synods. There are no assemblies of the people, no laws. Vain were it for an embassy to come hither,

1 Cf. Capitular., ed. Boretius, ii. 376.

2 Regino (an. 888) tells us how, on the death of Charles the Fat, each section of his empire " de suis visceribus regem sibi creari disponit. Quae causa magnos bellorum motus excitavit .... quia inter ipsos (principes Francorum) csgualitas generositatis dignitatis ac potential discordiam augebat."

6 INTRODUCTION

for there is no court to receive it."1 What would the high-minded deacon have said had he lived to see the deposition of Charles the Fat, and the divisions and wars that followed it ?

That which rendered these wars specially disastrous was the fact that one or other of the contending parties was con- stantly inviting hordes of different barbarians to aid them in attacking their opponents and devastating their terri- tories. Drawn by these invitations, and by the prospect of booty, Northman and Slav, Hungarian and Saracen 44 sometimes trod the same ground of desolation ; and these savage foes might have been compared by Homer to the two lions growling over the carcase of the mangled stag."2

In addition to the progressive subdivisions of the empire, and to the inroads of heathen or infidel invaders, a third most potent cause of the degradation of Europe in the tenth century and in the first half of the eleventh was the enslavement of the Church in its episcopacy. Freedom of election had been lost in the ninth century,3 and in this Dark Age the Popes and the bishops became the creatures not simply of emperors or kings, but of petty local barons.4 Though there were some great bishops in Germany and in Kngland, the tenth century saw an episcopate largely composed of men who cared not for the glory of God and of His Church, who looked not to the beauty of His house, who had no concern for the spiritual and temporal welfare of their flocks, and who held learning in no esteem. • tally, from the node of their appointment, very

1 The poem, ,4 Dc querela dc dhris. Imp.," from which ihc above extract is taken, is to be found ap. Mabillon, Analcci. Vet. \ or P. I. .,

;9f-

■ :ne and Fall, r. 55. % Cf. Imbart de la Tour, / «j /ptscopales, 8 14 -1 150.

0 Germany, where the kings kept the episcopal appointments in their own hands.

INTRODUCTION 7

many of them became barons rather than churchmen, and worked more for the privileges of a class than for the welfare of the whole body. Under such bishops there can be no difficulty in imagining what their priests were like. And when the salt of the clergy had lost its savour, the great mass of the laity necessarily became acquainted with corruption.

Of the barbarians who devastated Europe in the tenth The Danes century, the Northmen,1 that is, the Norsemen and the Norsemen. Danes, were destined in the sequel to be as great agents for good in the civilisation of western Europe as they had once been powerful factors in its disintegration.

Though the piratical raids of the Norsemen had begun even before the close of the eighth century, their expedi- tions for permanent conquests did not begin till about the middle of the ninth century. About the same time, Harold Fairhair (863-934) in Norway, and Gorm the Old (860-935) in Denmark, strove successfully to make them- selves effective rulers in those countries. Their success caused many of the vikings to leave their Northern homes for ever. After their light ships had spread the terror of their name not only over the British Isles, the Low Countries, and France, but even into Spain and the countries of the Mediterranean ; and after they had carried " property " 2 back to Norway and Denmark from every

1 Cf. The Vikings in Western Christendom, 789-888, by C. Keary, 1891. The first "ships of Northmen" touched our coast in 787 {cf. Anglo-Sax. Chron.). Before 800 their unwelcome visits had been made to Ireland, Frisia, and Aquitaine. The monastery of Iona was destroyed in 806. By 825 the viking expeditions were in full force. And " we may take the middle year of the ninth century as about the time when the Danish vikings cease to be, like swallows, summer visitors only, but begin to pass whole years through in the enemy's territory " (id., p. 274).

2 Dudo, who wrote about A.D. 10 15, and who gives us the earliest Norman traditions, quaintly writes of the Norsemen : " Dimittuntur

8 INTRODUCTION

other European country, the vikings, about the middle of the ninth century, turned their attention, as we have said, to making regular conquests. Large portions of the British Isles and of France soon fell under their control. This, however, proved fortunate for Europe. Skilled in the art of war, no strangers to the refinements of life, and now masters of a considerable tract of sea-coast them- selves, they checked the ravages of their countrymen. When, in 912, Charles the Simple, of France, making a virtue of necessity, ceded to the viking Rolf or Rollo what was, from these very Northmen, afterwards known as Normandy, the wild Norseman and his followers not only became Christians, and adopted the civilisation they found attached to it, but presented a strong barrier to future marauders. In the following century their proficiency in the arts both of peace and war caused them to become one of the chief agents in bringing the anarchy of the tenth century to a close. But before they thus settled down, these terrible sea-rovers, who " never put awnings on their ships, never furled their sails to the wind," and would have no " straw-made beds outside their ships' berths,"1 were a scourge indeed, as our countryman Alcuin, and, long after him, Pope Formosus, had the best reason to note.2 Their aims were as lofty as their methods of striving for their accom- plishment were ferocious. Hasting, the Danish sea-king,

mopes, ut mcrcentur ex extrancis dipet. PrivantUT suorum fundu ut loccntur quicte alienis. . . . Liberator patria, suis incolis desccata. leterac condolcnt provinci.v, ptarimo hoste nequiter toxi- cal*. Sic dcpopulantur cuncta qua? sibi sunt obstantia." De morib. ft att. Norm,tn, t. i. p. 63, ap. Duchesne, Hist. A ript. A*Hq.

On the ravages of the Norsemen in Spain, sec herches sur

ru* ... 250 ft

I ^*e thc Wick,nK ,aws. ap. Vigfusson, 325.

CMtigatio est magna horum eruptio, antiquis ignota temporibus popolo Chmnano.' Kp. .84, ed. Dummler. "Nermann* Kentis proccIUs, laments Pope Formosus, ap. Frodoard, Hist. AV;;/., iv. 2.

INTRODUCTION 9

who invaded England in 893, had nothing less in view, so we are told, than the making of his king, Biorn Ironside, emperor of the West ; and, driven by a storm out of his course, he seized Luna, near Carrara, in mistake for Rome x (c. 857).

Worse, however, in themselves than the Norsemen, and The certainly much worse for Italy, with which we are especially concerned, were the Saracens. While the Norse dragon was devouring the north, the Moorish crescent was casting its blighting glare on the south of Europe.2 In the pre- ceding volume enough has been said to show the mischief they wrought in south Italy in the latter half of the ninth century. To the centres of ruin and devastation which they established there during that period on the Garigliano, in Cetara, and in other places, they added others, towards the close of the same century, among the fastnesses of the Alps. Of these the most important was Fraxineto, in the neigh- bourhood of Fraxinet or Garde-Frainet, situated perhaps on the promontory of the maritime Alps, which shuts in the bay of Villafranca to the east of Nice. Here and in the adjoining passes of the Alps they maintained them- selves for the greater part of a hundred years. For though attacked at various times, as for instance even by a Greek fleet in 93 1,3 it was only in 942 that they were expelled from Fraxineto. Protected by the sea and by woods rendered almost impassable by a dense under-

1 William of Jumieges, Hist. Northman., i. 9, ap. P. L., t. 149. " Hastingus dominum suum (Bier) ad altiora cupiens provehere, de imperiali diademate cum agmine complicum coepit attentius tractare." No doubt much is attributed to Hasting which he did not accomplish, but there is nothing incredible in the episode spoken of in the text. Cf. Wheaton's charming History of the Northmen, p. 160 ff.

2 In Spain, as late as 1050, there was still question of the ravages of the Saracens. Cf. can. 6 of the council of Coyaca in the diocese of Oviedo.

3 Frod., Anna/., 931, ap. P. L., t. 135.

10 INTRODUCTION

:ii, they despised all local efforts to subdue them. At length, in 942, Hugh of Aries or Provence, king of Italy* obtained the aid of a Greek fleet to attack them by sea, whilst he assaulted them on the land side. The joint attack was successful. The Moors had to abandon their fortress, and fly to the passes of the mountains. But it is significant of the type of men who then controlled the destinies of Europe, that, instead of destroying this band of bloodthirsty bandits, Hugh agreed to let them remain on Monte Moro (Mons Maurus) on condition that, to the best of their power, they would hinder his rival, Berenger of Ivrea, from returning to Italy.1 It was not till 972 2 that they were ousted from this last coign of vantage.

Issuing from one or other of these lairs, the fierce Moors beset the passes of the Alps, plundering and murdering pilgrims on their way to Rome, and generally harassing the north of Italy. All the chroniclers 3 of the times speak with horror of the sea-washed fortress of Fraxineto ; and the dread doings of its Saracenic lords form a subject of frequent notice by them. Such as the following are the

recorded by them or by the sad testimony of monu-

1 Kiutprand, Antap.,v. cc. 9, 16-17. On a spur of the Montagnes

' iurcs, inland from Frejus, arc the remains of a Moorish fort.

These ruins are thought by others to indicate the site of Fraxineto.

•lidgc, I he Alps in Nature and History, p 82 f., 1908. Some

suppose Monte Moro to be the pass leading from the Saas valley

s'.i ; but the exact locality of the fortress of Fraxineto or

of Monte M A been ascertained. Cf. Poupardin, Le Royainnc

<** !*'• rll p. 243 ff. ; Paris, 1901.

Amutl., 972, quoting the Vita S. Maioli by Syrus. The

»» been republished, ip. /'. /.., t. 137. The account of the

.kttnxtmn of the stronghold is given, id., 1. 3, c. 1-8. "Sic Omni-

9***h »«» &■ ) mcritis, pra;cipitatis impiis, cliberavit

mi itinens,'' concludes the monk Syrus, after giving

ng account of this affair. Cf. Chron. Novalic., v. 18.

* Cf. Chron. Nt : 3.' 6; Liutprandus, Antapod.,

INTRODUCTION 1 1

mental inscriptions. In the year 92 1,1 says Frodoard, " a great number of Englishmen, on their way to Rome, were crushed to death with rocks rolled upon them by the Saracens in the passes of the Alps." We need not, therefore, suspect Gregory of Catino (who towards the close of the eleventh century drew up the Chronicle of his monastery of Farfa) of much exaggeration when he says2 of this period : " When at length, in punishment of the sins of Christians, the power of that dynasty (the Carolingian) began to decline, and became altogether impotent, a multitude of pagans of that wicked race called Agareni, or Saracens, invaded Italy, and few were the cities from Trasbido to the Po, with the exception of Rome and Ravenna, which escaped destruction at their hands, or which were not at least brought under the scourge of their tyranny. As for the cities and provinces which they conquered, it was their practice to plunder them of everything, and either to drive away the inhabitants into captivity, or to slay them with the edge of the sword."

The ports of south Italy were crowded with Christian captives waiting to be shipped as slaves to Africa.3 Saracen buildings all along the coast about Amalfi, Naples, and Vietri attest to this day the baleful presence of the Moors

1 Cf. the entry for 923, " Multitude) Anglorum limina S. Petri orationis gratia petentium, inter Alpes a Sarracenis trucidatur." " An inscription formerly in the parish church of Bourg-St.-Pierre, in the Val d'Entre- mont, recorded the murders committed by a band of Saracens in the St. Bernard's Pass." Destruction of Ancient Rome, p. 158, by Lanciani.

2 Chron. Far/., ap. R. I. SS., ii., pt. ii., 416. Miley's translation, with additions {Hist, of the Papal States, ii. 180), is here cited. Cf. Destructio Farf, c. 1, ap. M. G. SS., xi.

3 As early as 870 the monk Bernard the Wise, on his way to the Holy Land, saw thousands of such captives at Tarentum. Cf. Itinera Hierosol., ed. Tobler, i. 310, quoted by Chalandon, Hist, de la domin. Normande, i. 5.

12 INTRODUCTION

in those districts.1 Place-names, and Moorish towers on the ruins of Roman amphitheatres, enable their hold on the Rhone valley to be traced with ease. But of all the parts of Italy, it was particularly the Duchy of Rome which experienced the greatest hardships at the hands of the Saracens. They began to threaten it about 72$* Rome itself was partially sacked by them in 846, and Liverani * points out that their actual ravages in the Roman Duchy lasted for a hundred years; that the whole of it was ravaged at one time or another; and that not far short of four hundred towns were destroyed by them. They burnt such famous monasteries as Mt. Cassino, St. Elia at Nepi, Farfa, St. Sylvester on Mt. Soracte, and Subiaco; and established centres of aggression at suitable places both in and near the Duchy. But for such Popes as John VIII., John X., and Benedict VIII., they would have become crs of Italy. If there is any exaggeration in the language of Gregory of Catino when applied to the Saracens only, there is certainly none when referred to the united barbarities of the Saracens and the Hungarians. These latter, kinsmen of the Huns and the Avars, proved the worst of the scourges that wasted the continent of Europe at this period. Known to them- selves as Magyars (children of the earth),4 they were called by others Hungarians, because they came from Jugaria (Ougaria, hence the Greek " Ougroi "), on the slopes of the northern Ural Mountains. This Tartar people, of the great Turanian family, akin to the Turks and to those who gave

1 Italian Highways, p. 2 1 6, by E. King; London, 1896. Cf. Lenormant, i^Grhc, i. 196.

' Ep. 27, mm.

1 Gioranr, ng the second volume of his works.

1 The derivation of Magyar is doubtful. The one given in the text is a likely one. Ma means earth in most of the Finnish languages ; and in Hungarian. gyif means child. CJ. Hist. Gin. dti llongrois, p. 3, by Ed Sayous, Paris.

INTRODUCTION 1 3

their name to the " Bulgarians," came South, driven by hunger and enemies, or simply impelled by their nomad instincts. In the ninth century they settled in south Russia, in the district behind the Sereth, watered by the Pruth, the Dniester, the Bug, and the Dnieper, and then known as Ateleusu.1 Thence they soon advanced further West, either driven by the Tartar Petchenegs, or invited by the Greek emperor, Leo VI., to help him to make war on the Bulgarians, and, it is said,2 by Arnulf, king of Germany, to assist him in his efforts to subdue the Moravians ; or, at least partly, urged on again by their love of wandering. As early as the year 862, what we may call the advance guard of this nation of mounted archers, alluded to by Archbishop Hincmar as a people hitherto unknown to western Europe,3 threw themselves upon the kingdom of Louis the German at the time when it was being ravaged by the Danes. For some thirty years not much is known in detail of the doings of the Magyars. They were engaged in subduing the Slavs, wedging themselves in between them, and getting a hold of the country about the Middle Danube and the Theiss. But after the year 892, when in the annals 4 of the monastery of St. Gall we read the mysterious words that Arnulf the German relieved the Hungarians where they were cooped up, the chronicles are

1 Cf. Sayous, p. 4 ; Les Origines (vol. i. of the Hist. Gen. of Lavisse and Rambaud), p. 718.

2 By «<?«-German authors, arguing from rather indefinite statements in the chronicles of St. Gall and Fulda (Ann. Sangall. maj., and Ann. Fuld., both ad an. 892, ap. M. G. SS., i.) ; and from direct assertions in Liutprand, Antapod., i. 13, and Widukind, Res. Gest. Sax., i. 19. Widukind, a monk of Corbey, wrote about 975. Cf. Sayous, p. 53.

3 Annal. Hinc, ad an. 862, where another body of marauders is spoken of who, " unknown to the Germans," " illis populis inexperti, qui Ungri vocantur, regnum ejusdem populantur."

4 An. 892, Annates Sangall. maj., ** Arnolfus contra Maravenses pergebat, et Agarenos (Ungaros) ubi reclusi erant, dimisit."

I4 INTRODUCTION

full of the doings of the Magyars. It is the Ungari here, the Ungari there, the Ungari everywhere, as though Arnulf had let the winds out of the bag ! The hoofs of their indefatigable horses clattered over almost every road in Germany, France, and Italy.1 Their arrows brought death to the men and women of the North as to those of the South. And no * distance," says Gibbon.2 " could be secure against an enemy who almost at the same instant laid in ashes the Helvetian monastery of St. Gall and the city of Bremen on the shores of the Northern Ocean."3 And so we encounter such entries as these in the chronicles of the period: — A.D. 919, "The Hungarians4 harry Italy and part of France ; to wit, the kingdom of Lothaire." " This year" (926), record the annals of Reichenau,5 "the Hungarians laid waste all France, Alsace, Gaul, and Germany ( Aleman- niam) with fire and sword"; and under the year 932: 44 When they had burnt many cities of eastern France and Germany, they crossed the Rhine near Worms, and devas- tated the kingdom of Gaul even to the ocean, and returned through Italy."

If their widespreading and long - continued ravages caused the Magyars to be described by more or less strictly contemporary authors as a people who were "greedy,

1 899 is the date assigned to their first invasion of Italy by many of the annals {Ann. Sangali. nun. ct maj.y Laubacensrs, etc.). The annals of Flcury, an. 936 ap. P. Z., t. 139, have M Prima in totam Galliam Ungarorum irruptio." tine and Fa//, c 55.

Oram gens, cujus omnes pene nationes expense sunt uevitiam, Liutp ..

><1., Ann . 1 1 ungari in Apuliam veniunt," is a no/a

T" 'visis, ap. MurMor\> An/tgi/i/a/ts

. iii. 676, cd. Milan, 1741. Among the monasteries

destroyed by these barbarians was Nonantula, where "codices ibi

OOCrematL" Ib.t v. 674, from the monastic records. Cf. id., i. 23.

* Ann, Augienses, ap. M. G. SS.t i. Cf Ann. I- loriacenses, an.

93&I »i 139, etc.

INTRODUCTION 1 5

audacious, ignorant of God, acquainted with every crime, and keen only for slaughter and plunder," x and as " most fierce in war," 2 their appetite for raw flesh made even these coaeval writers lay to their charge that they drank the blood of the slain.3 To later writers they were known as men with dark countenances, and deep-set eyes, small of stature, barbarous and ferocious in their language and morals, so that " fortune must be blamed, or rather the divine patience admired, which exposed this beautiful earth not to men, but to such monstrosities of men." So wrote the good Bishop Otho of Frising4 in the twelfth century. Of these latter exaggerated descriptions the popular imagination took hold, and in the ogres of our childhood we did but shudder at the wild doings of the Ungari in the tenth century.

The Hungarians, however, were not destined to have all their own way. Neither the science nor the art of war had been altogether lost in the West, and at length the Germans broke the power of the Magyars. A great defeat was in- flicted upon them at Mersebourg by Henry the Fowler in 933, and another by the Saxons in 938. A final crushing overthrow was sustained by them at the hands of Otho the Great in 955, on the Lech, near Augsburg. Despite these reverses, it was not till the death of their great chief Taksony5 (947-972) that their ravages practically ceased. How much they contributed to help the confusion of the tenth century can easily be imagined. " The Hungarians," says 6 Gibbon, " promoted the reign of anarchy by forcing

1 Liut, Ant., i., c. 13 ; or c. 5, ed. R. I. SS., ii. 428.

2 Widukind, Res. Sax., i. 17.

3 Liut., ib., ii. c. 2, " Interfectorum sese sanguine potant."

4 De Gest. Fred. Imp., 1. i.} c. 31, ap. R. I. SS., iv. 665. Cf. Ott. Fris., Chron., vi. 10.

5 Ann. Augie?ises, an. 934 ; Liut., Ant., ii. 25 f., etc.

6 Sayous, pp. 86-92.

16 INTRODUCTION

the stoutest barons to discipline their vassals and fortify their castles. The origin of walled towns (becoming later on, we may add, the nurseries of our modern liberties) is ascribed to this calamitous period." The empire in the West was being broken to pieces for ever. It was at the same time being pulled down by its children from within, and battered by the barbarians from without. Out of its debris were to spring the nations of Modern Europe. But painful was their birth. Terrible were the throes of Christendom in the tenth century. And while the churches of the North l rang with the mournful litany : " A furore Normanorum libera nos Domine,"2 those of the South resounded with the tearful supplication : " Nunc te rogamus, licet servi pessimi, ab Ungerorum nos defendas jaculis." 3

1 Decline, etc., c. 55. Cf. Muratori, Anna/., an. 892, who assigns the

wars between Berengarius and Guido as the cause which moved the

Italians to fortify their towns, and who quotes some interesting verses

of an inscription in which Bishop Leodoinus records the fortifying

' dena :—

" His tumulum portis et erectis aggere vallis, Firmavit, positis circum latitantibus armis, Non contra dominos erectus corda serenos, Sed cives proprios cupiens defendere tectos."

But, as stated in the text, the ravages of the Hungarians were the chief cause of the fortification of both towns and monasteries in north Italy. Cf. an act of 24th June 904, of the seventeenth year of King Berengarius, in which leave is given to the bishop and the people of Bergamo to repair the walls of their city which had fallen into decay : " unde nunc maxir»e sevorum Ungarorum incursione, et ingenti comitum suorumque minis- trorum opprcssione tenebatur." No. 410, p. 688, ap. Codex difilovi. Umgpbardiir ; Turin, 1873. Cf. Nos. 448, p. 773 ; 456 and 467.

} The Knulish clergy were saying votive Masses "against the pagan." Cf. Bndgett, A Hist, of the Holy Eucharist in Great Britain, p. 1 14, ed. 1908.

1 Muratori, Antiq. Med. ACvi, t. i., Diss. 1, p. 21, 2 ed. ; Milan, 1738.

( oppressed by the Saracens, the people of Aries were praying : " Libera

populum tuum xpistianum (sic) de obpressione paganorum," etc. See

>s M pro persecutione paganorum " at the beginning of the Aries

Sacramentary, ap. Poupardin, Le Royaume de Provence, p. 408.

1 1

1.1

3 ^

INTRODUCTION IJ

The result of all these fierce incursions, and of the General intestine wars waged by kings and nobles for the name of nZ$S% emperor or for personal independence, for rivalry or for revenge,1 was, of course, widespread anarchy, ignorance, and immorality among all classes, both among the clergy2 and the laity. The bonds of civil and ecclesiastical law and discipline were cut by the sword, and all — at least the powerful — did what they considered right in their own eyes. Taking every advantage of the troubles which had come upon the fallen empire of the West, the nobles generally made themselves absolute masters in their own dominions, and did just as they thought fit. The canons of the councils of these unhappy times furnish a clear insight of what those deeds were which "they thought right," and of their results. The synod of Pavia (889), held for the election of Guido as king of Italy, decreed 3 that the palatines of the king must refrain from plunder- ing, and that, in coming to a diet {placitum), they must not rob the places they pass through, but pay for what they needed.4 The people, moreover, must not be unduly taxed nor violently oppressed (can. 7). Another synod, that of Ravenna in 898, under Pope John IX., calls on the Emperor Lambert to repress the arson, the robberies, the brutalities of all kinds which were rampant in the empire5 (can. 5).

1 Cf. St. Peter Damian, Epp., iv. 17.

2 We read {Chron. S. Mart. Colon,, ap. M. G. SS., ii. 215) of one cleric (Warinus, abbot of St. Martin) that he is said to have burned alive Gero, archbishop of Cologne. However, after he in turn became archbishop (976-984), it repented him, and " de crimine Romam ivit.,;

3 Can. 8, ap. Muratori, R. I. SS., II. i. 416.

4 Id., can. 9. " Hi (palatini) vero qui tempore placiti diversis ex partibus conveniunt nullam pertranseuntes in villis seu civitatibus rapinam exerceant sibi necessaria antiqua consuetudine digno pretio ementes."

5 Cf the decrees of the synod of Hohenaltheim, ap. Hefele, Concil., vi. 152 f.

VOL. IV. 2

1 8 INTRODUCTION

The council of Trosle, held under Heriveus, archbishop of Rheims, in 909, bewails at once the devastation of cities and country and the decay of virtue, and proceeds to lay the blame of the latter on the bishops. They have kept silent when they ought to have spoken out.

Certainly, in this unhappy period, the Church had not much influence for good, as she was in most parts suffering from the most grievous oppression. Candidates the most worthless and unfit were forcibly intruded into her most important offices — even into the chair of Peter. The wealth of some of the larger monasteries and episcopal sees caused them to be much coveted by the powerful. Greedy nobles seized on them by force or contrived to intrude into them some members of their family. The council last spoken of, besides regretting the destruction of many monasteries by the barbarians, deplores the absolute want of all discipline in many others. Some of them cannot be brought to order, as they are under the power of bishops different from those in whose dioceses they are situated. Others have laymen for abbots, who have taken up their abode in the monastic cloisters with their wives and children, soldiers and dogs ! And whereas in some monasteries there was luxury and pomp, the direst poverty forced other monks to turn to worldly employments to g.i'm a livelihood.1 So that, if the somewhat caustic Ratherius of Verona (|974) gives2 us a striking picture of Italian prelates of the tenth century, eating and drinking out of vessels of gold, entertained by dancing girls, hunting, and travelling in gorgeous carriages, it must not be for- gotten that it was with those in the Church as with men

0 this council Hcfele, ft, p. 146 f. Cf. Labbe, ix. p. 520 f. 1 Praloquiorum, 1. v., n. 5 f., p. 142 f., •& Ballerini, or ap. /'. Z,., The translation of this passage in Gregorovius is exaggerated in parts, especially where there is question of the immorality of the clergy. Cf. his De contempt, can., ii., p. 2, ap. P. /,., t. 136, p. 516.

INTRODUCTION 19

in the State in the tenth century. Luxury was for the few, poverty and oppression for the many. Bishops who were nobles, in many cases violently intruded into the sees they held, lived like the nobles. The inferior clergy lived like the mass of the people, sure neither of their bread nor of their lives. Of this there is more than evidence enough in the fact that, even during the ninth century, councils in their decrees, and kings in their capitularies, found it necessary to be constantly legislating for the protection of Church property ; and an author 1 of the last twenty years of the tenth century speaks of the Emperor Otho I.'s restor- ing churches throughout Italy (Lombardy) and Tuscany which had been brought to desolation by the barbarity and wantonness of former princes. Needless to say that the grossest simony was practised, and that matters went from bad to worse. St. Peter Damian has left on record 2 the depth of ignorance, simony, and intemperance to which the clergy had sunk by the days when the brave Gregory VII. began to put into action the moral lever with which he was to raise the Christian world into a higher groove.

The recital of a concrete3 case or two of lawlessness will serve better than anything else, perhaps, to put in clear relief the condition of the Church, in Italy especially, in the tenth century.

An historian4 who flourished under S. Gregory VII. Particular

informs us that Hugh of Provence, king of Italy, finding of lawless- ness.

1 The author of the Translatio S. Epiphan., c. 2, ap. M. G. SS., iv. 248.

2 Opusc, 18, 22, 26, etc., ap. T. iii., ed. Cajetan.

3 Taken from Miley's Hist, of the Papal States, ii. 239 f. I have verified or corrected his references.

4 Arnulf the elder, the historian of the city of Milan. " Sed quia in puerili aetate ad episcopandum minime videbatur idoneus, Ardericum grandasvum senem interim subrogavit (Hugo) antistitem, sperans eum etc. . . . Necem illico meditatur occultam. . . . Sed propitia divinitate liberatus evasit Ardericus." Hist. Med., 1. i. c. 2, ap. R. I. SS., iv. p. 8.

20 INTRODUCTION

that he could not succeed in getting his son consecrated archbishop of Milan on account of his extreme youth, had him tonsured (935). He then procured the election of Ardericus, from whose advanced years he anticipated that a vacancy would be sure to occur by the time that his son would have come of age. But as the venerable Ardericus lived longer than he wished, he resolved to put him to death. Accordingly he was invited, along with other magnates of Milan, to Pavia. There, in the midst of a royal entertainment, the followers of King Hugh fell on the archbishop and his friends. Ninety of the Milanese were murdered ; but, as if by a miracle, the aged prelate escaped.

For a pecuniary consideration, this same king appointed as abbot of Farfa the murderer of the preceding abbot Ratfredo.1 This wretch, whose name was Campone, had an accomplice, one Hildebrand, who went to Pavia and paid the money to the king. The new abbot appointed Hildebrand to the richest of the "cells," or subordinate monasteries of the abbey. But before a year had passed, these precious monks, both noblemen, are at open war, with bands of armed men on both sides. Success is at first with Hildebrand, for he hired the banditti and free-bands of Camerino. The monastery of Farfa is carried by storm. But, by a judicious distribution of treasure, Campone wins the marauders who had secured the victory for Hildebrand ; his rival is expelled, and Campone is once more abbot of Farfa.

We will tell one more story of these times from the same annals, as Hildebrand figures in it also. Again in

I Chron. Far/., ap. ft /. SS.t II. ii., 457 f. "Sub hujus memorati Ratfredi Abbatis rcgiminc erant duo scelerati in hoc monasterio, falsi habitus monachi, pessimaeque nequitia?." The Destructio Fan \% here being followed.

INTRODUCTION 21

the days of King Hugh, writes the author1 of the chronicle of Farfa, there were savage wars between Ascarius and Sarilo for dominion over the March of Firmo. Sarilo slew Ascarius and obtained the March. On this, King Hugh broke out into a great fury against Sarilo, and pursued him with vengeance, because Ascarius was his brother. Sarilo, driven to the last straits in a small place in Tuscany, where he had taken refuge, put on the cowl of a monk, and with a halter about his neck came out from the town gate just at dawn, and threw himself at the feet of the king. Hugh, moved to compassion, forgave him the murder of his brother, and placed him over all the royal monasteries within the confines of Tuscany and the March of Firmo.2 All the abbots submitted to Sarilo except Hildebrand, the rival of Campone. He was accordingly attacked in the castle of St. Victoria, and forced to surrender it. Hilde- brand returned with recruited forces, attacked the castle, and compelled the new abbot to retire ignominiously. He, however, returned to the charge, and with success the second time. With abbots such as Hildebrand, Sarilo, and Campone, ecclesiastical discipline might well have been at a discount.

It must not be thought from our reference to councils Want of held in this period that these invaluable aids to order were tenth then regularly celebrated. The fact is, as we have it on cen ury" the authority of the ablest historian of the councils, Bishop von Hefele,3 this period, especially in comparison with the ninth century, was very poor in synodal gather- ings ; and those that were held were of no importance.

1 Gregory of Catino, at the very beginning of the twelfth century.

2 Chron. Far/., ap. 7?. /. SS., II. ii. p. 475. "Et motus Rex misericordia super eum perdonavit ei ipsam culpam, ac praeposuit eum super cuncta monasteria regalia infra fines Tuscias et Firmanae Marchiae" !

3 Cone, vi. 145, Fr. ed.

22 INTRODUCTION

Their action was purely local, and had no ameliorating influence on the sad condition of the Church in general.

As might be expected, the period of which we are writ- ing was not distinguished for the cultivation of learning in any of its branches. " In the midst of such universal desolation," asks l the illustrious author of the History of Italian Literature, Tiraboschi, "was the pursuit of learning possible? If the peace which Italy enjoyed under Charlemagne and Lothaire, and the measures taken by these princes to make learning flourish once again, were not enough to rouse the country and make it turn afresh to the ' bell' arti ' so long neglected, what must we suppose to have been the effect of disasters so terrible that they would have spread barbarism and ignorance even among more cultured provinces?"

The effect may easily be estimated not only from the considerations set forth by the modern scholar, but from what a quasi-contemporary tells us of the appalling dearth of teachers, even to some extent in his own time. The philosophic abbot, Guibert of Nogent (fi 124), writing par- ticularly of the state of things just before his own days, tells us that a teacher in a small town could not be found, and that even the large cities could produce but few. The learning of such masters as were forthcoming was, he says, but very scant, and not to be compared with that of any wandering cleric of modern times.2

Both a cause and an effect of the prevailing ignor- ance of the times was a scarcity of books. No doubt there were other causes of this want of books, such as their destruction when monasteries, their chief repositories,

1 Storia delta L,t. It., iii. 169. Cf. p. 166. "Quia musica et astronomia in Italia tunc pcnitus ignorabantur." Richer, Hist., iii. 44. Cf. iii. 49, " Musica multo ante Galliis ignota."

• De vita sua, i. c. 4, ap. P. L., t. 1 56, p. 844.

INTRODUCTION 23

were destroyed. Another cause was the dearth of paper : " For since Egypt, the ancient home of the papyrus, had fallen into the power of the Arabs, the scarcity of writing material had been keenly felt in Italy, and to this cause Muratori in part ascribes the intellectual barbarism of the tenth century." 1 But we must be on our guard against forming exaggerated ideas of the book famine of this epoch. It was not so much that there were then no books, or but few, in Italy at any rate, as that, owing to the troubled state of the times, new ones were not so frequently written or old ones copied. We have the positive assertion of an author, viz. Gerbert, afterwards Pope Sylvester II. (999-1003), who knew more about books than any other man of his period, that there were a great many books to be found in all parts of Italy, as well as in Germany and in the " Belgic " provinces,2 i.e., the duchy of Lorraine. And we read of a Spanish priest stopping a whole year at the court of Pope John X. (914-928), and collecting " a multitude of books " with which he returned " with joy " to his own country.3 If, too, it be the fact, as Richer avers it was, that music and astronomy were unknown in Italy in these dark and inharmonious days, there was light enough to prevent the brush of the artist from quite losing its cunning. The " prince of painters" had still his residence in Italy, and when the emperor, Otho III., in all things most eager for the glory of the empire, needed an artist to decorate the cathedral

1 Gregorovius, Rome, iii. 500. The too facile pen of this author leads him to overdraw his pictures. His sketch of the evils of the tenth century is an illustration of this assertion.

2 Ep. 130 to the monk Rainard. " Nosti quanto studio librorum exemplaria undique conquiram. Nosti quot scriptores in urbibus ac in agris Italian passim habeantur." Cf. ep. 44, infra ; and Tiraboschi, ib., L. iii c. 1, n. 29. Havet's ed. of Gerbert's letters is here used.

3 Chron. Iriense, n. 7, ap. Florez, Esp. Sagrada, t. xx. 603. " Qui collecta multorum librorum multitudine cum gaudio ad propria rediit."

INTRODUCTION

of Aix-la-Chapelle, be summoned the pious Italian John to do the work.1

During this hundred and fifty years of bloodshed and gloom, how fared it with the city of Rome ? A poem on a manuscript of the period 2 supplies us with an answer not wholly wide of the truth. u Alas ! unhappy Rome, thy power was built up by great rulers ; now, a servant of thy former slaves, thou art rushing to thy ruin. Thy princes have long abandoned thee ; thy name and thy glory have fled to the Greeks. Prosperous Constantinople is known as the New Rome. In thy walls and in thy morals, O worn-out Rome, thou art falling to thy ruin. Empire has left thee, Pride alone remains. The worship of avarice has completely possessed you. A mob torn from the ends of the earth, the slaves of thy slaves are now thy lords. Not one of thy old nobility remains with thee ; thy free-born sons are reduced to tilling the soil. You who once cruelly put the saints of God to death, are now wont to sell their sacred remains. Were you not nourished by the merits of Peter and Paul, long ago would you have quite shrivelled away."

Taking the evidence of invective verses for what they are worth, we are driven to form our ideas on the state of Rome at this period rather from conjecture from what we know of it in the ninth century, and from a few

1 Cf. Vita luildtrici Leodiensis, c. 14 flf., ap. M. G. 55., iv. ; and Kurth, Notgcr de Litge, p. 319.

2 Though found in a tenth-century MS., the poem was the product of a slightly earlier age, viz. of 878 ; but it may well be applied to the

century. Ap. Jaffc, Mott. r>ambcrg.y p. 457.

" Moribus et muris, Roma vetusta, cadis.''

I have used Jaffes edition, but the version in the M. G. PP., iii. 555 is fuller. The following line from it shows that the lords of Rome referred to were the Saracens :— " Manziribus {i.e. sons of a harlot, Ismaelites) tubjecta jacens macularis iniquis."

INTRODUCTION 2$

passing references to it in the records of the following age, than from the extremely little which contemporary docu- ments have to say regarding it.

Were we to confine our gaze to the legal documents of this epoch which have come down to us, we might be tempted to suppose that all was as usual in Rome. We find that the Prefect was still judging criminal cases (in the name of the Pope) both in the city and in its immediate neighbourhood, and that there were Consules Romanorum and Duces and other papal officials exercising various executive functions during the whole period of these obscure years. Still was justice in civil cases ad- ministered by the seven great officials of the papal court, the primicerius, the secundicerius, the arcarius (treasurer), the first of the defensors, the nomenclator, the saccellarius (paymaster), and the protoscrinarius. Indeed, fairly com- plete lists of these functionaries during this age have been compiled.1 Assisting these seven judices ordinarii were certain subordinate judges, known as judices dativi, who, though usually exercising no other than judicial functions, were not competent to decide cases apart from the clerical judices ordinarii. And these palatine judges themselves, under increasing pressure of business, gradually ceased in the course of the eleventh century to exercise any other than purely judicial duties.

In theory, then, no matter how " imperfectly known the administrative organisation of Rome before the middle of the twelfth century may be, it rested wholly on the sovereignty of the Pope. It is from him that all authority emanated, and it is in his name, and in virtue of powers which he had delegated to them, that the different officials

1 Cf. Etudes sur P administration de Rome au moyen age (751-1252), by L. Halphen ; Paris, 1907. This is distinctly the best book on the subject.

26 INTRODUCTION

issue orders, levy taxes, and administer justice." l Further,

if the schola cantorum, which was also known as the

Orphanotropio — the ecclesiastical seminary of preceding

ages, whence had issued so many Pontiffs who had graced

the See of Peter — was still in existence, it is very certain

that many who sat in his chair in the tenth century had

never been inside its walls, or been subject to any kind

of ecclesiastical training. John, "the venerable subdeacon

of the Roman Church," who was its primicerius in the days

of Pope John XI. (934),2 may easily have lived to wish

that John XII. had experienced a little of his disciplinary

care.

a was Hence, as a matter of fact, if certain outward appearances

really ruled

either by connected the Rome of the Iron Age with the Rome of

locmcy or the Carolingians, it was really a changed thing. Not merely tlrlf.t. were its ancient fourteen imperial and seven ecclesiastical regions, which had hitherto existed side by side, replaced by twelve divisions corresponding fairly well to the modern rioni* but both the papal and the imperial power were reduced there to a shadow. No longer was there a perma- nent imperial missus in Rome ; and if an emperor did come there in person or by an envoy, his authority was barely respected during the time of his visit. If the dignity of the emperor, who normally lived at a distance from Rome, was regarded there as of no account, even the authority of the Pope who resided in its midst was often but as little respected. All real power was at this time in the hands of the great families who, through their connection with the local militia, had become a practically independent feudal aristocracy. These families were all jealous of one another,

' Halphen, I.e., p. 52. * Muratori, Antiquit. Ital., iii. p. 237 ff.

1 The twelve divisions embraced only Rome proper, i.e., Rome on the left bank of the Tiber, and took no account of the inhabitants of the Trastcvere or of the Island.

v >J

si

51

H §

INTRODUCTION 2J

and were perpetually fighting for supremacy. The one aim of each party, pursued by every resource of violence and intrigue, was to get control of the chair of Peter. Its occupant must be one of theirs at all costs. And what a price had Rome to pay for their ambitions ! Its law and order, its morals, even its very buildings were sacrificed to them.

Peering through the historic gloom, we catch sight of the fierce retainers of the different families feverishly con- verting into robber strongholds the monuments of antiquity, the Septizonium, the triumphal arches, and the temples of the ancient gods. By degrees the Forum and its immediate vicinity became a nest of castles, from the castellated arch of Septimius Severus in the north-west to the embattled arch of Titus in the south-east. From these fortresses issued forth men who neither feared God nor regarded man,1 and to whom were sacred neither the canon nor the civil law, neither the vestment of the priest nor the cloak of the citizen, neither the gold of the sanctuary nor the mite of the widow. And, as though these were not troubles enough for Rome, it was, to use the rather exaggerated language of Raoul Glaber,2 almost wholly the prey of fire towards the close of the tenth century.

Moreover, whilst violence was the order of the day within the city walls, it was equally rife in their immediate neigh- bourhood. Robber nobles beset the highways, plundering merchant and pilgrim with equal impunity; while the

1 The famous Bishop Fulbert of Chartres (tio28) denounces to King Robert the Pious nobles of a similar sort in France, men " who do the king all the harm they are able to accomplish, and who threaten all that they are not able to do." Ep. 57, an. 1020, ap. P. Z., t. 141. And, speak- ing of the viscount Geoffrey, he says (ep. 30, an. 1019) that, by rebuild- ing the castles which the king has destroyed, and by building new ones to oppress the people, he shows himself one "qui nee Dominum nee excellentiam vestram se revereri."

2 Hist., ii. 7.

28 INTRODUCTION

quaking watchmen on the walls of Rome, at least during the first half of the tenth century, must have been ever afraid lest the wild Hungarian archer, whom they beheld spreading desolation around and discharging his arrows in impotent rage against its lofty towers, might yet stable his horse in the atrium of St. Peter's, and transfer his barbarities to the already blood-dyed streets of the city. Often must they have encouraged one another to untiring vigilance ; and often must they have prayed — for faith did not die in Rome during the tenth century — that God would deliver them from the darts of the Hungarians.1

But again must the note of warning be sounded. Rome was not under a Pornocracy, as some writers would have us think, for a century and a half; nor was it an utter stranger to the arts of peace throughout that long period. There were books there, as we have seen, in plenty; and thither we know went men to consult them.2 It was at Rome also, as texts to be quoted in the course of this volume will show, that ecclesiastics purchased ornaments

1 At any rate we know that the citizen soldiers of Modena so acted in 892. They would have their walls echo with the cry of « Watch ! »

> you who keep these walls in arms E'er watch in midst of war's alarums. Whilst wakeful Hector went the round, Troy's ancient walls stood safe and sound."

44 Et sit in armis alterna vigilia, Ne fraus hicc invadat moenia, Rcsultet echo, * Comes, eia vigila,' Per muros 4eia,' dicat echo 'vigila.'"

Cf. The poems of two citizens of Modena, ap. M. G. PP., iii. 703 ff. Cf Benedict of Soracte, c 30, writing of some year about the middle of the tenth century, « Itcrum autem venientes Ungari juxta Romam a porta S. Joannis, cxierunt Romani et pugnaverunt cum Ungarorum gent, et ccciderunt de nobilcs Romani,1 etc. The Latin of Benedict is a reflex of the times.

1 Cf St Bartholomew's Vita S. Nili, § 4, p. 34, of Rocchi's Italian translation.

INTRODUCTION 29

for their churches, both textile fabrics and articles in metal or marble. Charters of the tenth century have preserved the names of certain Roman artists {exigui pictores as they modestly style themselves) ; x and it must be borne in mind that even during the sad days of that darkest age of Rome, the tradition of Roman art was never lost. It survived to a happier time, and passed on its principles to Florence, to be by that more fortunate city so gloriously expanded.2 But, considering the grinding poverty with which so many of the Popes of the Dark Age were oppressed, and the turmoil into which their city was so often plunged, an epoch of artistic development is not to be expected. On the contrary, it is matter for congratulation that the arts of painting and sculpture did not perish altogether in Rome. And it is remarkable that it was during this period of artistic depression that the Roman artists were " called upon to produce some of the most extensive works in the history of their school," viz. the redecoration of St. Peter's and the Lateran. Though their work may show "less of artistic quality than at any other time," their school "seems to have been pre-eminent in Europe."3 Nor was their work confined to Rome itself. Frescoes of the tenth century still adorn the walls of the monastic church of St. Elia near Nepi, and the artists who painted them have inscribed their names beneath the feet of the figure of our Saviour whom they have depicted in the apse. The brothers Stephen and John, and their nephew Nicholas, were the three " Roman painters " who executed the frescoes of St. Elia.4 When about the year 990

1 Cf. Fedele, Una chiesa del Pa latino, p. 359 f., ap. Archivio dell a R. Soc. Rom. di stor. pat, 1903.

2 Cf. the latest edition of Crowe and Cavalcaselle's History of Painting, i. p. 153 n., etc.; and Frothingham, The Monuments of Christian Art, pp. 114, 308, 349; New York, 1908.

3 Frothingham, id., p. 308. 4 Id., p. 310 ff.

30 INTRODUCTION

Otho III. wished to decorate the imperial palace of Aix-la-Chapelle, he showed "the high esteem in which the Roman school of painting was held " by employing, as "his chief court painter, the Italian artist John."1 Finally, in this connection, it is worth noting that modern authorities assign to this age and to a Roman artist the little work De coloribus et artibus Romanorum, one of the very few technical productions of the early Middle Ages. It was the work of one Heraclius, who, while lamenting the decay of Roman genius and Roman institutions, and sorrowfully asking who is now capable of understanding and explaining the noble arts of the ancients, bravely made an attempt himself, and issued his practical manual "for painters, with all necessary receipts and directions for mixing and using colours, and for making mosaics."2

In the second half of the tenth century, too, a religious reform was being carried out within the walls of Rome. The "terrible" tyrant Alberic was to a considerable extent under the civilising influence of St. Odo of Cluny (879-942). Under him he became " a pious frequenter of the cloisters," and to him he gave the care of all the monasteries of Rome. Many of them were in consequence led to embrace the Cluniac reform, and some new ones were founded, — one on the Aventine by Alberic himself.8

Among the other monasteries which were built at the time just mentioned was that of S. Maria in Pallara, on the Pala- tine, which was at the same period adorned with frescoes.

There are not wanting authors who maintain that there thingham, /£., p. 313.

1 Ib.y p. 308. I presume it is the work printed by Muratori, Antiq. /Ml., ii. 366, and assigned by him to the end of the eighth century.

in dccus ingenii quod plebs Romana probatur Decidit," etc

Fedele, Una chiesa del Palatino, p. 359 f., ap. Anhivio ddla R. Soc. Rom. di itor.pat., 1903.

INTRODUCTION 3 1

was no place in Italy in this unhappy time where learning was so conspicuous by its absence as in Rome. One of them l cites in proof the words of " the Gallic bishops at Rheims " — " There is no one at present in Rome who has studied the sciences, without a knowledge of which, as it is written, a man is incapable of being even a door-keeper. The ignorance of other bishops is in some degree pardon- able if we compare their position with that of the Bishop of Rome. In the Bishop of Rome, however, ignorance is not to be endured, since he has to judge matters of faith, mode of life and discipline, the clergy, and, in short, the universal Catholic Church." The weight of a man's words as evi- dence depends to a very large extent on the circumstances, such as the condition of body and mind, etc., under which he speaks. The words of a person in anger are not ac- cepted without question. And in connection with the statement just cited, viz., " that, as report hath it, hardly any one at present in Rome has studied the sciences," it must be explained that the Gallic bishops were engaged in arbitrarily deposing2 Bishop Arnulf, and in substituting Gerbert (after- wards Sylvester II.) in his stead. Hence they were en- deavouring, by decrying the Pope's intellectual capability, to deprive his expected condemnation of their conduct of all force. When this is explained, the testimony of the

1 Gregorovius, iii. 498. The council alluded to is that held at Rheims, June 991. A comparison with the original text, which is here subjoined, shows that the disrespectful language of Arnulf of Orleans has not lost any of its force through the translation of Gregorovius. " Sed cum hoc tempore Romas nullus ftene sit, utfama est, qui litteras didicerit, sine quibus ut scriptum est, vix hostiarius efficitur, qua fronte aliquis eorum docere audebit quod minime didicit. Ad comparationem quippe Romani pontificis, in aliis sacerdotibus ignorantia utcumque tolerabilis est ; in Romano autem, cui de fide, vita, moribus, disciplina sacerdotum deque universali ecclesia Catholica judicandum est, in- tolerabilis videri potest." Migne, t. 139, p. 314.

2 Of this council more will be said under Sylvester II. Cf Hock's Life of Sylvester II. , c. 5. French trans.

32 INTRODUCTION

M Gallic bishops " as to ignorance in Rome does not count for much. It is not equal to the testimony of Ratherius of Verona, which is quite to the opposite effect. He cate- gorically asserts * that there was no place where ecclesi- astical science was better taught than in Rome ; and Gerbert himself lets us know2 that, even towards the close of the tenth century, it was one of the cities to go to for books. No doubt for Rome there was a great falling off in learning in this unhappy period ; but we must beware of taking it for granted that its light was there quite ex- tinguished.

But how fared it with Rome's rulers, the Popes, during this calamitous epoch ? In the same way, though to a much worse degree, as it fared with so many other European rulers. Just as the power of other Western sovereigns was curtailed by the practical independence which so many of their nobles won for themselves, so that of the Popes was hampered by the Roman nobles. With the fall of the imperial authority the curb was removed from them. They soon seized all power in Rome, and oppressed both the Pope, the clergy, and the people.3 Some among

• " Quo aptius possum, quam Roma? doceri ? Quid enim de ecclesi- asticis dogmatibus alicubi scitur, quod Romae ignoretur." Itin. Rath. Rom., p. 440, ed. Ballerini.

* "Roma dudum ac in aliis partibus Italian, in Germania quoque et Belgica, scriptores auctorumque exemplaria multitudine nummorum redemi." Ep. 44, written about the beginning of 985. Cf. Tiraboschi,

C 2, n. 24.

•nizo of Sutri (tiooj), of whom more hereafter, writing from what he had heard of these times, expressed all this very clearly in his Liber ad Amicum, 1. iii. (ap. Migne, t. 150, or Watterich, i.) : " Nam Romanis auxilium imperatoribus ferre non valentibus, propter Sara- cenorum frequentissimos incursus, Francis divisis et ab ecclesia scqucstratis, urbis Romae capitanei .... Romanam ecclesiam vali- dissime devastaverunt. . Hi vero, Urbis capitanei, accepta tirannide, licentcr cuncta faciebant Nam non solum cardinalatus et abbatias et episcopatus turpissima venal itate fedabant,sed ipsum etiam Romans ecdesi;e Pontificatum, non spectataaliqua morum dignitate nee aliqua

INTRODUCTION 33

them endeavoured to make the Papacy an appanage of their families.1

Foremost amongst the nobility was the house of Theophylactus, whose relations or descendants were the practical rulers of Rome during this period.2 Of this house, if we are to trust Liutprand, the most notorious members were a certain Theodora and her equally famous or infamous daughters, Marozia and Theodora the younger. As ambitious as they were beautiful, they obtained the greatest influence in Rome by a prodigal prostitution of their charms. The supreme power in Rome was for a while practically in the hands of these licentious women. " Rome," says a contemporary chronicler,3 " fell under the yoke of women. As we read in the prophet : ' The effeminate shall rule over them ' " (Isa. iii. 4). Creatures such as we have described would naturally not stop at anything which would serve their ends. Nothing was sacred to them. Popes, at times members of their own families, and consequently not of a race calculated to produce saints, were made and unmade at pleasure. Sometimes even laymen were intruded into the chair of Peter. For the advantage of the party any- thing was lawful. That men sprung from a family of debauchees, and without any clerical training, should be a scandal to the Church, is no matter for astonishment.

tantte ecclesiae prasrogativa, solummodo ad libitum, cui placebat vel qui plus manus eorum implebat, donabant ; et non solum clericis, sed etiam laicis. Sicque languescente capite infirmabantur et cetera membra in tantum ut non solum altaris ministri secundi ordinis, sacer- dotes et levitse, sed ipsi Pontifices passim 'concubinati' haberentur."

1 "Nonnulli .... episcopatum, non divinum, sed haereditatis putant esse compendium. . . . Hoc non fecit papa Formosus. Non enim haereditario jure S. R. ecclesiam tenuit." Invectiva in Romam, p. 829 f., ap. P. L., t. 129.

2 Cf. the genealogical chart at the end of this introduction. Bened. of Mt. Soracte, Chron., n. 30.

VOL. IV. 3

INTRODUCTION

The great wonder is that there were not more really bad Popes in this miserable era. Guided by the expressions of the great Cardinal Baronius, many seem to imagine that all the Popes of the tenth century were bad. His language is, no doubt, strong enough. " The greatest monsters of cruelty and injustice," he writes in an oft-quoted passage, ■ arrogated to themselves, during that period, the election of the Roman pontiffs. And, oh, shame ! oh, heartbreaking ! what monsters did they not force upon that throne of the Apostle which angels regard with reverence ! What woes originated from this source ; what dark and bloody tragedies ! Alas ! alas ! for the age in which it was reserved for the spouse purchased by the Redeemer in His blood, the spouse without stain or blemish, to be so defiled with the filth thrown upon her as to be made (like her Divine founder) the object of scorn and the laughing-stock of her enemies."1 With the documents at his disposal, Baronius was, no doubt, justified in making these reflections. But since his time sources have "been brought to light which, had the cardinal known them, would have caused him to modify his strictures. Were we, however, to allow that the Popes of this period were as bad as ever they have been painted, what has been said above, which we will now in part repeat in the words even of Gibbon,2 must be borne in mind : " These Popes had been chosen, not by the cardinals, but by lay-patrons " .... and "were insulted, imprisoned, and murdered by their tyrants ; and such was their indigence, after the loss and usurpation of the ecclesiastical patrimony, that they could neither support the state of a prince nor exercise the charity of a priest." Further, as there is no question that in any case the Church was in great danger, it may be pointed out, again

1 Baron., ad an. 900, n. 3, p. 501, ed. Lucca. * Decline \ etc., c. 49.

INTRODUCTION 35

with Baronius,1 that the fact that the Church (which he compares to the ark of Noah) did not then perish is a striking fulfilment of the promise made to St. Peter that " the gates of hell should not prevail against it."

In fine, all who reflect on the lives of the Popes of the tenth century, especially if they be such as are content with the present position of dependence which has to be endured by the Holy Father in Rome, must ever remember that the history of the Popes of the tenth century " is the history of the Popes deprived of their temporal power." 2

Deprived of their temporal power, the Popes of the tenth Loss of century lost the patrimonies which had hitherto enabled patri- them " to support the state of a prince and to exercise the m charity of a priest." Some of their patrimonies were seized by the powerful, some were freely given away by the Popes themselves to their supporters ; while, with regard to others, the supreme pontiffs were, so to speak, forced to fall in with the feudal ideas in vogue at the time, and to grant them to be held in feudal tenure, very often receiving but scant service in return. Hence we see Gregory V. (998) granting to the famous Gerbert, arch- bishop of Ravenna, and to his successors, not merely the counties of Comacchio and Cesena, but even the city of Ravenna, with its district and all its dues, along with the right of coining money.3 And when, in the eleventh century, the Popes recovered temporal dominion, it was as Princes, and not, for the most part, as proprietors. Their territories became the " Patrimonium beati Petri "

1 Ad an. 900, n. 1, p. 500.

2 O'Clery, History of the Italian Revolution, p. 27 ; London, 1875.

3 " Donamus tibi tuaeque ecclesise districtum Ravennatis urbis, ripam integram, monetam, teloneum, mercatum, muros et omnes portas civitatis." Ep. 14, Greg. V., ap. P. L., t. 137, p. 921. Cf infra, vol. v. p. 102 ff., for the feudal grant of Terracina by Sylvester II. to Dauferius ; and p. 96 for the canons of the synod of Ravenna in 898.

36 INTRODUCTION

in a new sense, and yielded them only what was their due as ruler, and not as owner.1 rhe Without here going into any detail on the subject, we

may note that one point cannot fail to impress itself deeply

be&wsof on the mind of the historian as he studies this period. ?ihe0t«Dth That one point is, that the historical sources for it in «"urjr. general,2 and particularly for what relates to those who occupied the chair of Peter during its progress, are most unsatisfactory. Not only have the contemporary papal biographies, which for three centuries have provided us with a reliable source of information, ceased to be forth- coming; not only have even inscriptions, much less collections of inscriptions, ceased to be produced,3 but during the whole of the tenth century no remnant of the pontifical "registers" has come down to us. Indeed, it may be questioned whether they were ever compiled.4 In Rome men would seem to have been so much occupied in trying to preserve their own lives or the smallest semblance of order, that they had no time to devote to the production of literary works of any kind.5 Hence, apart from the one-line contemporary notices which form, as it were, the continuation of the Liber Pontificalis, information on many of the Popes of the tenth century can only be procured from writers who were neither strictly con-

1 Fabre, De patrimoniis Rom. Eccles., p. 109.

% E.g., Lot notes that between 966 and 973 there is only one chronicle for the history of the Carolingians. Les derniers Cnrolin- giens, p. xxx i.

* To this Grisar {Analect. Rom., i. 139) calls attention. He observes that, after the ninth century, inscriptions became ever more rare, and that no traces of collections of inscriptions are to be found till well on into the eleventh century.

* Cf. Lapdtre,/*a» VIII., p. 16.

* So in France Gerbert, who is ever deploring the times {cf. epp. '30» '47) and the lack of men at once learned and good (epp. 139, 147), writes: <4 Mcliora tempora expecta, quibus valcant rcsuscitari studia, jampndem in nobis emortua," ep. 1 52.

INTRODUCTION 37

temporary nor had any intimate acquaintance with Rome. Hence authentic information about the Popes of this epoch is of the very scantiest, and it may be emphatically laid down that at least the vices attributed to some of the Popes of the tenth century are nothing like so well authenticated as the virtues of those of the ninth. Much of what is said against some of them may be true, but the evidence forthcoming to substantiate it is not enough to bring conviction to a judicial mind.

There is another important point to be borne in mind Essence of in this connection, and it is this : the essence of the spiritual107' Papacy, according to the Catholic point of view, is gul ance' spiritual authority. No promise, it is pointed out, was made by our Lord that St. Peter and his successors should be either good men or temporal rulers. Accord- ing to Catholic teaching, the line of the Popes was given to the world that through the ages there might be those who could always direct men aright in their spiritual necessities ; who could always point out to them the right paths they must follow in their belief and conduct. To the Alpine traveller it is not the virtue of his guide that is to him of the first importance; it is his knowledge of the mountain paths. And if, in the period under discussion, it be proved that the sovereign pontiffs lost at once their virtue and their temporal authority, it is certain that they never failed in their office as spiritual guides to men through the mists and darkness of the mountainous desert of life. With regard to some at least among the Popes of this period it was a case of doing, not as they did, but as they said. Fortunately, among the troubles of this weary period heresy was not one. Neither heresy nor schism added to the difficulties of the Roman pontiffs. They were not called upon to give any important guidance to the Church in what it had to

38 INTRODUCTION

believe or practise. No doubt the spiritual influence of the Papacy decreased during the century and a half of which we are speaking, but its spiritual prerogatives, un- like its temporal, did not fail ; and at the close of this disastrous period it was to give abundant evidence of its undying life by suddenly manifesting the most astounding vigour in both the spiritual and the temporal spheres. Hence when writers freely speak of the growth or fall of the Papacy, the distinction between its temporal and spiritual side must never be lost sight of. As in a man the body may flourish, pine away, or die while the soul lives on, the Papacy in temporal matters may, as it often indeed has done, show every sign of life, decay, or even death, whereas its spiritual prerogatives always endure. And not only do they merely endure, but, speaking broadly, it would appear that the exercise of these pre- rogatives, even in non-essentials, has gone on steadily increasing since they were first bestowed on St. Peter. At any rate there can be no question that, at the present day, when the Pope is deprived of the temporal power so necessary for the full and free use of his authority, the exer- cise of his spiritual power is more far-reaching in its effects than ever it has been before in the history of the Church. **«* Though at this period but comparatively slightly con-

TheNcar nectcd with the West in matters either spiritual or temporal, the Eastern Empire,1 if perhaps better governed than the West, still resembled it in many unfortunate particulars. Its Church, united with the See of Rome more in name than in fact, was in a very unsatisfactory condition. Greatly distracted, owing, among other causes, to the fourth

1 As far as the State was concerned, the victories of John I.,Zimisces (963-969), and the terrible Basil II., Bulgaroctonus (963-1025), brought about the last period of growth which was to be known by the Byzan- tine Empire. The tenth century saw a revival of art also at Con- 9 sUntinople.

INTRODUCTION 39

marriage of Leo VI.,1 the Wise, it has been truly said of it that, by the year 963, " the Eastern Church had entered on that period of stagnation in which it lies at the present day."2 And the synods held at Constantinople during this dreary age "only prove the sad state of the Eastern Church."3 With regard to the temporal affairs of the Eastern Roman Empire, we find the historian 4 of Byzantine history in the tenth century making the same complaints about the scarcity of documents as the historian of the Papacy, and equally regretting the impenetrable darkness which covers many of the events he would elucidate.

Even the Far East shared the depression of the West; u. The Far and the continent of Asia suffered in sympathy with that of Europe. " It is not a little singular," writes Mr. Beazley,5 " that at the very same period when the expansive energy of Western Europe, even in pilgrimage, seemed to have become practically exhausted, or at least unfruitful, both the Caliphate and the Celestial Empire should have suffered so severely from social and governmental disorder. The whole world seemed to receive about this epoch a certain lowering of its tide of life "

The annexed tables may well serve as a conclusion to this introduction, wherein we have seen " the more powerful oppress the weak, and men, like fishes of the sea, devour- ing each other." 6 It may be hoped that they will be of

1 He had himself legislated against even third marriages. His disregard both for his own laws and for the canon law of the Greek Church and for the feelings of the people caused a schism.

2 Hefele, Cone, vi. 191. 3 Id., p. 268.

4 Cf. Nicefthore Phocas, by G. Schlumberger ; Paris, 1890. After complaining of " la rarete des documents," Schlumberger continues : " L'histoire du dixieme siecle byzantin, comme du reste celle du dixieme siecle occidental, est encore enveloppee d'epais brouillards, qui ne se dissiperont jamais completement," p. ii.

5 Dawn of Modern Geography, i. 47. Cf. ii. 114.

6 Cone. Trosleianum, Labbe, ix. 523.

40

INTRODUCTION

use to the student who wishes to traverse the mazes of the tenth century.

Shadowy Kings of Italy and Nominal Emperors from the End of the House of Charlemagne to the House of Saxon v.

Elected emperor.

Berenger I., duke of Friuli

! Guido, duke of Spoleto . Lambert, son of Guido, associ- ated with Guido . Arnulf, king of Germany, de- scended into Italy Louis III., the Blind, king of Provence . . . .

Began to reign.

. 888

915 891

891 crowned 892

894 900

896

901

blinded 905

Death.

924 894

898 899

c. 923

Other very Fugitive Kings of Italy.

Began to reign.

Rodolf 1 1., king of Transjurane Leaves

Burgundy . . .921 Italy 926

Hugo, king of Provence . . 926 abdicates 945 „ 946 Lothaire (son of Hugo), associ- ated in the empire 931 (Berenger II., marquis of Ivrea, ^ grandson of the emperor

Berenger

Adalbert his son, elected with

his father ....

950

Both deposed in pre- sence of Otho I.

+950 }96i

Kinv.s of Germany and Emperors of the Romans. Carolinians — ♦Arnulf, 887. Louis IV., the Child, 899.

Eastern Emperors.

The Macedonian dynasty — Leo VI., the Wise, 886. Constantine VII., Porphyro-

genitus, 912-958. Joint rulers, Alexander, 912-913. Romanus I., Leca- penus, 919-945. Romanus II., 958-963. Basil II., Bulgaroctonus, 963-

1025. Joint rulers, Nicephorus II., Pho- cas, 963-969- * An asterisk shows those who were emperors of the Romans.

The Saxon dynasty — Conrad I., 91 1. Henry 1., the Fowler, 918. ♦Otho I., the Great, 936. ♦Otho II., 973. ♦Otho III., 983.

Henry II., the Lame, 1002

<

F u <

O

w

DC

H

O

O 1

pg

-

< U

5*o j§ «i ^ «

5 D »-

rt -5

CO to v

	>»T
	w£«
	_ll-2
	Lan dop
	rt —
	v_^<*
	oo
	1—1 M
	*"* r»»
	_3 9s a

^ rt C/3

Si p

</> C

u£

js woe

c rt E k-o 2 « 6 "5 « v E

(j D rt g^

J!

c3

X.

8 8 «

s

.9 E

•5 *

ogS ^ 2 o cog

c ">

. o

= 8 s

*o

8 o

U.2

c 'C

3^ 73 rt

Jbe

|

?

■If

J; o

.So ■fl C «j

J3 TJ c>

■ft A

SI? s

>< C 3 >

o *

> V

o r^ "

<U Oh

> o

>> a So

* .

:s ft S

r c-'>

•I. 6 °

o t>

•8 li

rt -d £ d — -a a-a

2^ a

far--

E is fa # 3

d » OH '^ ^

r S " 'a $ ><

I X! > ft gl !,"

III 3<3

ft ri ,/ -a .

* tv ° o I

»J * ^ 5 « ,j

s * .a ^ « s

km

'$ O > vo

^ d^» -

a a 1 «

O -G

ba".»"

fe " a „

13 A,

M

£ fa

^o " g 'o V.

o c /

^ ? § « •§ 1 < § 1 s a ^

K O 3

hi £ <-. 3 5 M " "

o "5

* i 1 5 ? I

o

c s

■a %

* •- a S a §

> 2

o —

i as.

^5 ° J5 be

w* «> ** .2

d E S |

iiUi

^ o -c> v< be d« ^ ° 2 > S . SO

J a is s fe

g vo fa « m

I - a S i

I « -i i 5

^. d § ^ «a M I a 1 & °

fa o <«

« o c-s-S

S <« u ° ° £

. e.g-a - "

u o c ^ > • <-<

fa: Mt -„|v ^u

ft 2" Z«:~- 6 S"^ tf'l

c o a „ « « « d u - .2

t! be

o >,

«m

8 §>hh ^Orag^^^-STl- 2 >,

S fa M ^O So

x -i

•3.1

INTRODUCTION

41

Kings of Germany and Emperors of the Romans.

The Franconian dynasty — *Conrad II., the Salic, 1024. *Henry III., the Black, 1039.

Henry IV., 1056. *Henry V., 1106. *Lothaire the Saxon, 1125-1138.

Kings of England.

Alfred the Great, 872. Edward the Elder, 901. Athelstan, 925. Edmund I., 941. Edred, 946. Edwy, 955.

Edgar the Peaceable, 958. Edward II., the Martyr, 975. Ethelred II., the Unready, 979. Edmund II., Ironside, 1016. Canute the Great, 1017. Harold Harefoot, 1035. Hardicanute, 1040. S. Edward III., the Confessor, 1 043- 1 066.

* An asterisk shows those who were emperors of the Romans.

Eastern Emperors.

The Macedonian dynasty — Joint rulers, John I., Zimisces, 969-976. Constantine VIII., 1025-1028. Romanus III., Argyrus, 1028-

1034. Michael IV., the Paphlagonian,

1034-1042. Michael V., 1042. Constantine IX., Monomachus, 1042-1055.

Kings of France.

Charles the Fat, 884. Charles III., the Simple, 893. Louis IV., d'Outremer, 936. Lothaire, 954. Louis V., 986. Hugh Capet, 987. Robert, 996. Henry I., 1031-1060.

FORMOSUS.

A.D. 891-896.

Sources. — A one -line notice in the Liber Pontificalis (ed. Duchesne, ii. 227), instead of the former regular biographies. (Cf. vol. ii. 354 of this work.)

Of no little importance in connection with the reign of Formosus are the controversial writings of Auxilius and Vulgarius, of whom (after discovering several pamphlets of theirs) Ernest Diimmler penned an account in his Auxilius und Vulgarius} Leipzig, 1866. Of these writers the former, Auxilius, a Frank at least by descent, and a citizen of Naples, was ordained priest by Pope Formosus.2 When the enemies of Pope Formosus declared his ordinations null and void, Auxilius, feeling that the Pope's cause was his own, took up his pen in his defence. The date of his death is not known, but he "seems to have died as a monk at Montecassino." 8 The five following short treatises are

1 That I know anything of this little work is due to the kindness of my friend W. H. S. Meredith, B.A. (Oxon.), who translated for me part of the German portion of it. Many of the statements made by Diimmler can only be ascribed to the want of a complete understanding of Catholic dogma.

1 He says of himself: " Nos autem, qui de longinquis regionibus ad apostolorum limina properamus, sacra? unctionis charismatibus, quae per illorum pontificem accipientes initiamur, nullatenus a posteriore apostolico expoliari debemus." In def. s. ord. Form., i., c. 11, ed. Diim., p. 73. Cf. id., c. 9.

* Balzani, Early Chroniclers of Europe : Italy, p. 104.

42

FORMOSUS 43

usually assigned to him ; but the fourth is really the work of Vulgarius : —

i. In def ens. s. or din. P. Formosi, in two books, written in 908, under Sergius III. (cf ed. Diim., p. 95), ap. Diim., p. 59 f.

2. Libellusin def. Stephaniep. (Neap.), elprcefal. or din.; Ib., 96 f.

3. Libel, de ordinal, a P. Form, factis, ap. P. L., t. 129, 1054 ff. Diimmler gives a fuller edition, pp. 107-116.

4. Libel, super causa el negol. Form. ; seu Libel, cujusd. inquirenl, P. L., ib., p. 1103 ff. This was really written by Vulgarius.

5. Tractat. qui Infensor et Def. dicilur, ap. P. L. ; ib., 1073- 1102; written, like No. 3, c. 911, and, like it, dedicated to Leo, bishop of Nola.

The latter, Eugenius Vulgarius, "une mauvaise langue," * flourished between 887 and 928. He was an Italian grammarian, and, like Auxilius, seemingly a citizen of Naples. His De causa Formos. libellus (according to Diim., p. 117 f., written in 910; but cf. ib., c. 1, p. 118) was "not only a defence, but a panegyric." But after he had been incarcerated for a time by the order of Sergius, he abandoned the party of Formosus, and servilely flattered Pope Sergius III. Some suppose he returned to his former allegiance under John X., and credit him with writing the Invediva in Romam, ap. P. L., ib., p. 823 ff. 2 This tract, drawn up under John X., inveighs against the Romans for their treatment of the body of Formosus, and upbraids them with acting in this case as they have been wont to do from the earliest times, viz., with putting their benefactors to death. As Diimmler found the name of Vulgarius attached to No. 4, that pamphlet should also be ascribed to him, and not to Auxilius, as it used to be on conjecture. It must be borne in mind that the writings both of Auxilius and Vulgarius are party pamphlets.

Something must now be said, at rather greater length, about the most notorious chronicler of the tenth century, Liutprand, bishop of Cremona. Born in Lombardy, towards the year 920, in an " official circle," — his father had been sent as ambassador

1 Lapotre, Jean VIII., p. 362.

2 If Vulgarius was not at least a priest, he cannot have been the author ; for the writer of the Invect. says (sub fin.) : " legatione et sacerdotio Christi fungimur."

44 FORMOSUS

to Constantinople — he was possessed of a fine voice which helped him, as a lad, to gain the favour of King Hugo. When this tyrannical monarch had to quit Italy (945), Liutprand, now a deacon of Pavia, turned to the rising sun, Berenger II., and contrived to bask in the light of his favour also. For some reason, however, he earned the displeasure of Berenger, and had to betake himself to Otho I., from whom he received a gracious reception. Through the influence of Otho he became bishop of Cremona (961), and from that time forth was in the thick of affairs. He went as the ambassador of Otho both to Rome (964, 965, 967) and to Constantinople (968, 971 ; he had been there already, 949-950). His death seems to have occurred at the beginning of 972. Evidently his career and position pre-eminently fitted Liutprand to become an historian of his own times. And to this he was urged by Recemund, bishop of Elvira, with whom he formed a friendship whilst at the court of Otho (956). Yielding to the bishop's suggestion, he wrote three works, all of which, though incomplete, are still extant. Of these the most important is the Antapodosis, or Book of Retri- bution, written, in six books, between the years 958 and 962. It treats of events which occurred throughout Europe during an interval of sixty-two years (888-950). His Historia Ottotiis, written in obedience to the command of that emperor, treats of affairs " of which he had been an eye-witness from 960 to 964." Finally, his Relatio de Legatione Constantinopolitana gives a racy account of an embassy which he undertook to the court of Nicephorus Phocas, to ask that the hand of Theophania, the daughter of Romanus II., might be given to the young Otho (II.). On the character of Liutprand and the historical value of his writings a very great deal indeed has been written. Of the lively bishop an equally lively Frenchman writes l that he was a wretched Lombard cleric in Otho's pay, who hated everything Roman, because the Romans welcomed with too little enthusiasm the German invasion of their soil. Quite in harmony with this author write Muratori,2

1 Lucius Lector, L dec Hon papule, p. 44 ; Paris, Lethielleux.

1 He speaks of "le laidezze e maldicenze dclle quali e si vago nella sua storia Liutprando. Prestava egli fede a tutte le pasquinate e a libelli infamatori di que' tempi, che ne pure allora mancavano." Annul., ad an. 911.

FORMOSUS 45

Rohrbacher,1 and other distinguished historians. And if, gener- ally, his credit as an historian was formerly rated too low, Balzani 2 notes " a modern tendency to rate him somewhat above his due." He includes among those who display this tendency, Liutprand's latest editor, Dummler. We shall probably avoid both extremes if we conclude by allowing that, while perhaps he did not deliberately concoct untruths, he had not that gravity or critical talent required in an historian who would win the confidence of any serious person. With his taste for narrating the obscene, and telling anecdotes, which are often but the repetition of scandalous gossip, he may well be com- pared to Infessura or Burchard in the fifteenth century. Even Dummler notes 3 his party spirit, and his hatred of Berengarius, and points out that, especially in the earlier books of his Antapodosis, where he relied on the narrative of others, and often confused the order of events, he must be corrected by other authors ; and that even in the other books it is clear that he always attached too much credence to fables and idle reports. These words of the learned Dummler must convince anyone that Liutprand must be read with great caution. The best edition of the works of Liutprand is that of E. Diimmler,4 which is an emended reprint from the Mon. Germ. SS., iii. The Ant. and the Relat. also, ap. R. I. SS., ii. p. i, and the Hist. Ottonis, ap. Watterich, i.

In the chronicle of the careless and ignorant Benedict, monk of St. Andrew's on Mt. Soracte, finished about 973, there is some grain amid much chaff. His work shows, writes Pertz, that he made the worst use of the best sources. It has been reprinted from the M. G. SS., iii., by Migne, t. 139. A good chronicler is Regino, abbot of Prum (1915), whose work was continued to 967 by a monk of the monastery of St. Maximinus of Triers, ap. M. G. SS., i.

A fragment of a Greek chronicle of the lives of the Popes, including those from Formosus to John X., is of no great value. It was constantly quoted by the Spanish bishop, Bernard Guido

1 Hist, de Veglise, t. 59, vol. xii. p. 430 f. ; Paris, 1851.

2 Chroniclers of Modern Europe : Italy, p. 141.

3 Pra/at., p. x. Cf. Jungmann, Diss., xviii.

4 Liutprandi, Op. Om., ed. Dummler; Hannoverae, 1877.

46 FORMOSUS

(t 1 33 1 ) in his Lives of the Popes, and is not, as Gregorovius erroneously writes, "merely a translation from B. Guido." The fragment was published by Cardinal Mai {Spirit. Rom., vi. P- 599 *•)• Guido's Lives is in the same volume. Of more value is a catalogue of the tenth-century Popes in a MS. written at the very end of that century. Archbishop Sigeric (of Canterbury) visited Rome in 990. A contemporary MS. gives a short itinerary of his journey, and attached to it is a list of the Popes from John X. to John XV., both inclusive. The catalogue (printed in The Memorials of St. Dunstan, Rolls Series) is useful, as it gives us the titular churches to which the Popes had been attached when cardinals. It will be quoted as the Sigeric Catalogue. It is also printed in the L. P., ii. p. xv. Of Frodoard ; the panegyric, De laud. Bereng. ; the Annals of Fulda, etc., mention has been made in vol. ii. of this work.

Seven of the letters of Formosus may be found, ap. P. L., t. 129, p. 837 f. A few more, privileges for the most part, may be found elsewhere; e.g. one for the bishop of Piacenza, first published by Mons. P. Piacenza in vol. vii. (1898) of the Archiv. Stor. per le Provincie Parmensi.

Works. — In the first part of his Auxilius und Vulgarius, Diimmler says something in a rather bitter way about Formosus and his immediate successors.

Emperors and Kings of Italy. Emperors of the East. (See p. 40.) Leo VI. (the Wise), 886-912.

triy Of the early career of Formosus (born 816), bishop of Porto, the successor in that see (864) of the deposed Radoald, a Roman l and the son of one Leo, enough has already been said in the previous volume. There mention

1 Annal. S. Columb., an. 882, ap. M. G. SS., i. Cf. Invert., p. 825. " Patronum tuum Formosum papam in tuo ab ipsis cunabulis educatum gremio .... quem litteris imbuisti,"etc. A Corsican tradition makes Formosus a member of the familia Perello, and of the commune Vivario in Corsica.

P/ioto, Alinari.

A section of the frescoes of S. Tier in < hfcdo, showing the portrait is. Seep. n6ff.

FORMOSUS 47

was made of his embassy (864) to Constantinople on the subject of the election of Photius, and of the great work he performed in converting the Bulgarians to the faith of Christ.

Formosus seems to have erected, during his pontificate, a memento of this latter episode of his life, in the shape of a painting in a little oratory beneath the temple of Claudius, near the church of SS. John and Paul. In this picture our Lord was represented in the midst of SS. Peter, Paul, Lawrence, and Hippolytus. At His feet were depicted a barbarian chief on one side, and Formosus on the other. The painting was discovered in 1689, and a copy of it was published by De Rossi. Even then, though the name was visible, the figure of Formosus himself had faded ; and for some time past this interesting monument has become quite obliterated.1

Formosus enjoyed the confidence of Hadrian II. as he had that of Nicholas I. ; and, at first, seemingly, that of John VIII. also. Then, suddenly accused (876) of ambitious scheming with Bogoris, king of Bulgaria, and of aiming at the Papacy, he fled from the face of the angry John, and afterwards swore never to return to Rome. Recalled, however, by Marinus I., and by him absolved from the oath he had unwillingly taken at the council of Troyes in 878,2 he was reinstalled in his position as bishop of Porto, consecrated Stephen VI., and was pressed to succeed him.3

"Stephen, the son of Hadrian, having gone the way of Election of

tt 1 Formosus.

all flesh, says Vulganus, or whoever was the author of

1 Direct from Duchesne, L. P., ii. p. 190. Lanciani, Ruins of Ancient Rome, p. 355, thinks the figure of Formosus was deliberately obliterated after his condemnation by Stephen (VI.) VII. An illustra- tion of this picture is given in Cabrol's Diction, d'archeol chret., p. 105, sub voce Bains.

2 Aux., Inf. et Def., c. 32. 3 Cf. supra, iii. 308.

48 FORMOSUS

the Invectiva in Romam} " thy bishops and nobles, O Rome, thy clerics too, and the classes (populus) and the masses (vulgi tnanus) came together, and going to the episcopal church of the See of Porto, situated within the city, they acclaimed its bishop (Formosus) Pope." The same authority tells us how Formosus refused the high honour which was thus thrust upon him, and fled to the altar of his church, from which he had to be dragged clinging to the altar cloth. The date generally assigned to this event is October 6, 891 ; but neither the day nor the month are known with certainty.

As Formosus was a bishop already, he was not conse- crated again ; but, amid the greatest demonstrations of joy, was simply enthroned,2 and received the homage of all. He was, at any rate, the genuine choice of the Romans. He was chosen spontaneously by them without any pressure from without,3 and simply on account of his merits — his high birth and the nobility of his character.4 He was also seemingly chosen without opposition ; for what Liutprand 5 relates about a counter-election of Sergius

1 Invert., p. 825-7. "Principes .... vulgus et scol;c tu maximum usque ad minimum, eum elegerunt, acclamaverunt, lauda- vcrunt, et adoraverunt ; et episcopi cum sacro Lateranensi ordine inthronizaverunt." Cf. Aux., ed. Diirn., p. 62, "Quern (Formosum) clerus et populi Romani summopere studuerunt eligere." Cf. ib., 70 ; Anna/. Ataman., ad an. 891, ap. M. G. SS., i.

2 Cf. Inf. cf Def, c. 26 ; Invert., p. 826 ; the Roman council of 898. "Omnes ilium inthronizavimus," ap. Mansi, Cone, t. xviii.,

3 "Sine cujuslibet gentis obsidione," Aux., ed. Diirn., p. 70.

4 Can. 3 of the council of Rome (898), held to rehabilitate his memory by John IX. Labbe, ix. 503. Cf. Vulgarius, ap. P. L., t. 129, p. 1 106.

* Ant., i. c. 29-30. Gregorovius, misinterpreting the friendly violence spoken of by the Invert., says (iii. 217 n.) that it relates that ■ Formosus had been raised to the Papal chair by violent means ! " And with no other authority but the mistaken Liutprand, he persists in describing Sergius as the opponent of Formosus.

FORMOSUS 49

is the result of utter confusion on his part of dates and persons. Sergius opposed John IX. in 897.

Translations from see to see were at this time certainly regarded as uncanonical, but exceptions to the law against them had always been tolerated. A good cause had always been held to be sufficient to justify a translation ; and, in the case of Formosus, the Roman council of 898 declared that the satisfactory reason was present.

As the sequel proved, Formosus had many enemies. Some were hostile to him because they were opposed to translations from see to see under any circumstances ; others because they thought that he ought to have kept to his oath and not returned to Rome ; some, again, be- cause they supposed he had been guilty of intriguing for the archbishopric of the Bulgarians, and others simply because he was not of their faction. Among these last was especially, as we shall see, the ducal, now imperial, house of Spoleto. But none of these parties made any decided move on the death of Stephen (V.) VI. The election of Formosus was unopposed.1

On the deposition of Charles the Fat (887) the Caro- The lingian empire finally went to pieces. Arnulf, an illegiti- emp'r€ mate descendant of Charlemagne, possessed himself of Germany and aspired to be recognised as emperor, but had to recognise as kings, Odo, count of Paris, over the West Franks ; Boso of Provence or Cisjurane Burgundy ; Rodolf of Transjurane Burgundy {Regnum Jurense, the Juras and Switzerland) ; Berengarius of Friuli, and Guido, duke of Spoleto (889), in Italy.

Guido, successful at first over his rival Berengarius, had Formosus

and the Empire, 1 It would seem that the account given by Darras (Hist, de Veglise, 892- xix. 193 ; Paris, 1873) and others of the election of Formosus is not to be relied on, as it largely rests on the twelfth-century chronicle of Zwethl, and on an imperfect understanding of the Invectiva. VOL. IV. 4

50 FORMOSUS

had himself crowned emperor by Pope Stephen (V.) VI. (891).1 In the following year, in order to strengthen his hands in his unceasing struggle2 against Berengarius, who was still unsubdued in his Duchy of Friuli, he associated his son Lambert with him in the e?npire, and caused 3 him to be crowned by Formosus in 892 (April 30?). But though the Pope had at one time4 written to Fulk, archbishop of Rheims, and a relative of the house of Spoleto, that he had a father's love for Lambert, and wished to keep an inviolable peace with him, he afterwards found it necessary (893) to invite Arnulf to come and free "the kingdom of Italy and the belongings {res) of St Peter " from " bad Christians," 5 i.e. from the oppression of the two emperors. As emperors the representatives of the house of Spoleto continued to act towards the Popes as they had done when they were merely dukes. They strove to further their interests at the expense of the Holy See.

Fighting, too, had begun again between Guido and Berengarius ; and there was no one to check either the Greeks or the Saracens in South Italy. Formosus believed that the presence of a stronger monarch like Arnulf was necessary for the peace of the peninsula. He would be able to curb the grasping ambition of the house of Spoleto, and perchance prevent the further advance of Saracen or Greek.

With the Pope's missi to Arnulf went primores of the kingdom of Italy, some of them at least of the party of Beren-

1 Cf. supra, iii. 376 ff.

2 Formosus, writing in 892 (Frodoard, Hist. Rem., iv. 2), says ; • Fatcmur, Italiam tunc semel et secundo horrida bella perpessam et pene consumptam.

3 "Lambertus in imperium (a Formoso) coronatus, sicut Wido Augustus pater ejus imperat." Chron. Catamr^ R, I. SS., ii., p. ii. 822. Cf. Ep. Form., analysed by Frodoard, Hist. Rem., iv. c. 2, sub fin.

4 Frod., ft, c. 3. * Annul. Fuld., an. 893.

FORMOSUS 51

garius. Arnulf received the envoys graciously, dismissed them with presents, and promised to enter Italy.1 This he did in the early part of 894, before the close of a very severe winter. Success attended his march at first, but fever, which invariably overtook the German armies during their descents upon Italy, fell upon his troops and forced him to return without reaching Rome.2

The death of Guido (894) did not alter the situation, Arnulf which, as Duchesne notes, was almost that of the year 754. Rome. Formosus, Arnulf, and Guido or Lambert stand to each other as did Stephen III., Pippin, and Aistulf. Lambert, now sole emperor, seems to have again forced the Pope to place the imperial diadem on his head.3 But he could not prevent him from a second time sending (895) earnest entreaties to Arnulf to come to Rome. " By the advice of his bishops," the German king complied with the Pope's request, and set out for Italy in the October of the same year.4 After overcoming the greatest obstacles, Arnulf at length appeared before the walls of Rome. Here a new and unexpected difficulty presented itself. Instead of finding Rome in the power of the Pope, and its gates thrown open to welcome him, he discovered that the' city was in the hands of Ageltruda, the mother of the

1 Annal. Fuld., an. 893. 2 lb., 894.

3 " Wido .... moritur. Lantbertus, films ejus, regnum obtinuit, et Romam veniens, dyadema imperii a prassule sedis apostolicas imponi fecit." Regino, an. 894. "Wido, Italici regni tyrannus .... obiit. Lantbertus eodem modo regnum invadendo affectatus est." Ann. Fuld., 894.

4 Ann. Fuld., 895. Mgr. Duchesne (Les premiers temps de Pe'tat pontifical, p. 152, 3, and p. 156) freely accuses Formosus of playing a double and crafty game in his dealings with the house of Spoleto and Arnulf. But in the absence of exact evidence, the charge can only be made on the French legal axiom that an accused is to be regarded as guilty till he establishes his innocence. But, on the preferable English principle, Formosus must be regarded as guiltless of the accusations made against him by Duchesne till they can be proved.

52 FORMOSUS

emperor Lambert, that the gates were all closed against him, and that the Pope was a prisoner. Ageltruda, the daughter of that Adalgisus, duke of Beneventum, who in 871 had seized the emperor Louis II., was one of the many Italian women of this period who distinguished themselves by their daring, if not always by their virtue. Astounded at this unexpected resistance, Amulf turned to his troops to know what was best to be done. With courageous unanimity they all cried out that the city must be carried by assault. The storming was begun at once. The defenders were driven back from the walls with showers of stones, the gates were battered in with axes, and the walls shaken with rams, and scaled with ladders. By the close of the day " the Pope and the city were freed from their enemies."1

There went out then to the Ponte Molle to meet the king, and to escort him into the city, " the whole senate of the Romans" and the "school" or colony of the Greeks with banners and crosses. Escorted into the Leonine city with the customary hymns and acclamations, Amulf was honourably received by the Pope on the steps of the basilica of the Apostles. Formosus then led the king into the church, and "after the manner of his pre- decessors, anointed and crowned him, and saluted him as Augustus"2 (Feb. 22? 896). After arranging various matters, Amulf received the homage of the Romans in St.

1 Wi- are here following the spirited account given in the Annals of Fulda (an. 896, M. G. SS. i. 411)— "apostolico pariter et urbe de inimicis liberato." The account of Liutprand, Ant., i. 25-8, is rejected as obviously inaccurate and fabulous. The same may be said of the version in De laud. Berengar., 1. iii. p. 398, ap. I\. I. SS., ii. pt. i. Cf. Anna/. A/amannici, et Laubacenses, an. 896, " Arnolfus Romam vi csepit, ".-p. M. C

2 Anna/. Fu/d., ib. tl Secundum morem antecessorum suorum im- perialem consecrationem coronam capiti imponcns, Caesarem Augustum appellavit."

FORMOSUS 53

Paul's. The oath of allegiance, which is inserted in the annals of Fulda, shows clearly that the obedience of the Romans to the emperor was to be second to that which they had to pay to the Pope. It runs as follows : " By all these holy mysteries of God, I swear that, saving the honour, obedience {lege), and fealty I owe to the Lord Pope Formosus, I will be faithful to the emperor Arnulf all the days of my life; and never will I to his detriment ally myself to anyone, nor ever afford any help to Lambert, the son of Ageltruda, or to his mother herself, towards worldly honour (imperial power); and never will I do any- thing in any way to hand over this city of Rome to Lambert or his mother Ageltruda."

Ageltruda escaped to Spoleto ; but two of the chief His death, nobles of the city were accused of high treason for having aided her to seize the city, and were exiled to Bavaria. Leaving one of his vassals, Farold, to guard Rome, Arnulf advanced towards Spoleto ; but, attacked apparently with paralysis, as his father, Carlomann, before him had been (877),1 he had to withdraw into Bavaria. He never recovered from the stroke, but died on November 29, 899. Before the emperor reached Bavaria, the aged Pope he had come to aid had also died (April 4, 896). 2

Nothing could have been more unfortunate for Italy, and Results of especially for Rome and the Papacy, than the departure parture of and death of Arnulf. When his, the only arm capable of keeping anything like order, was withdrawn, not only was the whole country torn with intestine war, but the repre- sentatives of moral power in the world became the sport of petty Roman barons. Nothing more strongly justifies the efforts of Formosus in his endeavours to procure the

1 According to Liutprand, Ageltruda had contrived to get a poisonous draught administered to him. Antap., i. 32.

2 Id., " Die sancto paschae."

54 FORMOSUS

active interference of Arnulf in Roman affairs than the sad events that happened in Rome immediately after his death. Nine Popes succeeded one another in eight years. Raised to the papal throne by factions, several of them suffered a violent death at the hands of factions. It is and has been the fashion with some authors to blame John VIII. and Formosus for imploring imperial protection, and much is said about their faithlessness to "Italy" by so doing. Much is written not only about the aspirations of national churches, but about the state of national parties at this time. It would, however, all seem to be beside the mark. It presupposes the playing of too high a game of politics for the period. Politics there were, and parties there were, but they were on a petty scale. To introduce our present ideas of European national politics into the tenth century is to convey a total misconception of the then existing state of affairs. Politics and parties were not then affairs of nations, but of individuals grabbing for power, and ready to ally themselves for their own ends with any one, Christian or heathen, or whether he spoke the same patois as they did or not. As yet there were no more formed nations than there were formed languages.1 Europe was then aristocratic, feudal, and local, not national.

1 This view is, I find, certainly that of some German historians. " Arnulf s visit to Italy, the first so termed pilgrimage to Rome .... has been regarded as a misfortune, because visits to Rome became from this period customary, and ever proved disastrous to the empire. But judgment ought to be given according to the difference of times and circumstances. The union between the people of Lombardy and of Rome was not so close at that time as it became at a later period, no Italian national interest had as yet sprung up in opposition to that of Germany, the Italians were uninfluenced by a desire of separating themselves from the empire as in later times, but were rather inclined to assert their right over it Guido, who was connected with the Carlo- vingians, attempted to turn the separation which had taken place between the northern nations to advantage, and appropriated to himself the title of emperor ; and, as far as these circumstances are concerned,

FORMOSUS 55

Before we turn to relate what is known of the ecclesiastical Formosus

and

doings of Formosus, there still remains something to be Charles said of his political action. On the death of Charles the 894 (?). Fat, the nobles of France, passing over a posthumous son (Charles IV., the Simple) of Louis the Stammerer, elected Count Eudes or Odo, the valiant defender of Paris against the Normans (885), to be their king. He was supposed to rule over the country between the Meuse and the Loire. But in the reign of this Pope certain of the nobles, pro- bably 1 as much to make head against the power of Eudes as from loyalty to the Carolingian dynasty, chose the boy, Charles the Simple, king (893).

Fulk, archbishop of Rheims, was the chief supporter of Charles, and succeeded in attaching to him the interest of Arnulf, an illegitimate Carolingian, and of Pope Formosus. The sympathies of a Pope were naturally with a scion of the house of Charlemagne ; and Fulk did not fail, by drawing a strong picture of the vices of Eudes, to endeavour to arouse them in behalf of his protege. He obtained from Formosus in Charles's interest several letters, of which Frodoard has preserved the outlines ; and that too, though at the time he had his hands full with the house •of Spoleto. Besides writing to Fulk to instruct him how he was to behave towards Eudes, the Pope adjured that prince no longer to molest King Charles in his person or property, but to grant a truce till Fulk could come to Rome. The bishops of France were at the same time invited to warn Eudes not to usurp what belonged to another, and to grant the truce. The young Charles was congratulated on

Arnulfs visit to Italy appears to be justified." Thus writes W. Menzel {Hist, of Germany, i. 302, Bohn's English ed.) from a German point of view. Cf. Lot, Les derniers Carotingtens, p. 168 ff. ; Paris, 1891. " Quand on lit Fhistoire du haut moyen age et du Xe siecle en particulier on est etonne de l'absence d'idee politique," etc. 1 Cf Ann. Vedast., an. 893, ap. M. G. SS., i.

56 FORMOSUS

his elevation to the throne, and on the devotion which he had expressed to the Holy See. He was also instructed as to how he was to rule. And as a pledge of his affection Formosus sent the young king the blessed bread which he had asked for.1

At first no success attended the efforts of Formosus. Not only did the fighting between Charles and Eudes con- tinue, but Arnulf took advantage of these troubles to harry that part of the country which was in the hands of Charles. Robbed by both Arnulf and Eudes, Fulk implored the Pope to order Arnulf by his apostolic authority not only not to harass Charles, but, on the contrary, to help him as one relative ought to help another. He also prayed Formosus to threaten Eudes with ecclesiastical censure, but pointed out to him that, in the present disturbed state of the kingdom, he could not come to Rome. The one thing which the archbishop had at heart was peace — not, as he told the Pope, because Charles's party was the weaker, but lest the resources of the kingdom should be so exhausted by war that it would become an easy prey to the Normans. The efforts of the Pope and the archbishop were at length crowned with success. First a truce was concluded between the two rivals, and then a final peace on the basis which Fulk asked the Pope to suggest to Eudes and the great ones of the kingdom. Charles was to succeed, on the death of Eudes, to the kingdom which was his by hereditary right, and meanwhile a partition of the kingdom was to be made, and a suitable portion assigned to Charles2

1 Frod., Hist. Rem., iv., c. 2, 3. Cf. his poem De Christi triumphis, 1. xii., c. 5 :

" Bellorum motus per Francica regna coercens Primates monet ecclesirc certare labore, Totius curae madeant ne regna cruore, Christicolae reges bellisve armentur iniquis " * Frod., ubi supra.

FORMOSUS 57

(896). Becoming sole king in 898 by the death of Eudes, Charles distinguished himself, as we have seen, by granting Normandy to the Northmen (911), kept the semblance of kingship till 923, and died in 929. The share of Pope Formosus in bringing about this peace, so important for France, is often passed over.1

From the very first months of his pontificate, Formosus Formosus turned his attention to the Church in France. He nomin- church of ated as his vicar, in accordance with occasional precedents, the archbishop of Vienne, Bernoin (Barnoinus), the brother of King Boso,2 and did what he could to remedy evils which seemed to be on the increase. Everywhere among both clergy and laity was the spirit of personal aggrandisement rampant. Simple bishops were striving for the honour of using the pallium, while lay nobles were seizing the property of the Church.3 To put some check on the rapacity of the nobles, Formosus issued a sentence of excommunication * against the powerful Richard, duke of Burgundy, brother of Boso, and one of the supporters of Charles the Simple against Eudes, and against Manasses, count of Dijon, and others. At the same time he ordered4 Fulk of Rheims to repeat the sentence against them. They are denounced by the Pope for having, amongst other crimes, been guilty of putting out the eyes of Theutbald, bishop of Langres, and of casting Walter, archbishop of Sens, into prison (896). For the same purpose, Formosus had already sent two bishops, Paschal and John, into France. By the order of the Pope, these legates presided at a council held at

1 E.g. by Kitchin, Hist, of France, i. 173.

2 " Formosus vices suas Barnoino commisit." Hugh of Flavigny in Chron.,\. i., ap. Pertz., viii., or P. Z., t. 154, p. 171. Hugh wrote at the very beginning of the twelfth century. His chronicle reaches to A.D. 1 102.

3 Frodoard, Hist. Rem., 1. i., c. 1 and 2.

4 Id., and Hugh of Flav., ubi supra.

58 FORMOSUS

Vienne (892), where various canons were issued, condem- natory of the usurpations of Church property, and of the outrages offered to clerics.1 To restrain the ambition of certain bishops, on the other hand, Formosus authorised Fulk to convoke a synod and pass suitable decrees on this subject in the Pope's name.2 But whether such a synod was ever held, or another one which the Pope himself had ordered to meet at Rome in March 893, is not known. Fulk of Rheims had been summoned to the latter, which was to be held to avert the ruin with which the Roman Church was threatened, to take measures concerning the troubles in the Eastern Church, and to deliberate concerning a schism among the bishops of Africa, in connection with which deputies had come to Rome to seek a decision.3 in em- The following extract from Neale 4 will show how it is

"ormosua that we are unable to furnish any details about the embassy Uricx from Africa here spoken of ; though, at the same time, it furnishes a reason why such an embassy might well have been sent. ■ Of Chail II., the Catholic Patriarch (of Alex- andria), history has preserved no particulars after the lega- tion of Cosmas to assist in the re-establishment of Photius. He departed this life after an episcopate of more than thirty years (903), and the see remained vacant. He had been long preceded to the grave by his namesake (Chail III.), the Jacobite Patriarch (899), and that see also remained vacant. This double vacancy seems to point to some persecution or affliction which both communions

1 Labbe, ix. p. 433, "Jussu D. Formosi."

* Frod., Hist. Rem., iv., c. 1.

' ft., c. 2. "Formosus monet cum (Fulconem) compati debere Romanic ecclesi.x, atquc imminenti ejus subvenire ruinae." The action of Formosus in the matter of the Photian schism has been explained under the Life of Stephen VI.

* Patriarchate of Alexandria, ii. 174.

FORMOSUS 59

equally shared ; but such is the ignorance or carelessness of the historians of the period, that we are unable to detail its nature, cause, or duration."

Despite the difficulties and dangers of getting to Rome at Appiica- this period, itwas the pressure of similar difficulties and dangers /m^«. at home that caused men to betake themselves thither, and to appeal for the protection of the Pope. Althougn at this time there were many whom no fear of God or of man would restrain, there were still left some who, if they feared not man, yet reverenced God, and the one whom they regarded as His vicar on earth, the Pope of Rome. Everything that was under his protection was sacred in their eyes. At all times, even during the darkest hours of this dark night of the Papacy, even when the occupant of the papal throne was personally unworthy of anyone's honour, men came to Rome to beg the Pope to cast his protecting mantle over them and theirs. Octavian might be despicable, but Pope John XII. was the Vicar of Christ.1 In the reign of Formosus several abbots came to Rome to beg him to take their monasteries under his special protection.2 One, the abbot of Gigny, took the precaution of offering to the Pope the monastery which he and a relative of his had founded out of their own resources, " in order that it might remain immune."3 Servus Dei, bishop of Gerona in Spain, came to Rome to beg Formosus "to confirm by

1 " It is remarkable that the first papal bulls confirming to episcopal sees freedom of election date from the end of the ninth century, and that during the tenth century the custom spread of obtaining from the Holy See such confirmatory bulls.'5 Cf. Imbart de la Tour, Les elections e'fltsc, p. 20 1.

2 Ep. i. Abbot Adalric came to Rome, says the Pope, to ask " ut ipsum venerabile monasterium una vobiscum apostolica muniremus auctoritate." Cf. ep. 7.

3 Ep. 7. The deed {testamenti pagina) by which he offered his monastery to Formosus, was entrusted by him to the Pope's care. Cf. ep. 4.

60 FORMOSUS

a privilege of his apostolic authority (confirtnationis) " the goods of his church.1

In connection with this bull, it is interesting to note with Omont that it is still in existence. The most ancient papal bulls actually extant date only from the beginning of the ninth century. Up to the commencement of the eleventh century they were all written on papyrus,2 of from one to several yards in length. Their great size, and the fragile nature of the material on which they were written, are enough to explain how it is that only twenty-three such bulls have come down to us. While Spain boasts ten of them, France eight, Italy three, and Germany two, it appears that England does not possess a single one.3

Amongst the fragmentary correspondence in connection with his church which Frodoard has preserved for us, he has left enough to show that even Fulk of Rheims, who was generally on the right side, striving hard for reform along with the Popes, could be guilty of tyranny, and stand in need of papal correction. Heriland, bishop of Therovanne, presumably a friend of Fulk, driven from his diocese by the ravages of the Normans, fled to the archbishop of Rheims. Fulk temporarily placed him in charge of a diocese which at the moment happened to be without a bishop, and wrote to ask the Pope to confirm Heriland in its possession. He at the same time asked Formosus to give as successor to Heriland a man who

1 Ep. 4.

- If by chance they were not written on papyrus {charta Romana), the attention of correspondents was specially called to the fact. Cf. ep. 4 of John X., ap. P. /.., t. 132, p. 804.

H. Omont, Dulles pontificates sur papyrus, IX(-X/e sticles, p. 2. 1 have to thank Mons. Omont for kindly sending me this interesting pamphlet, which contains a complete list of these venerable documents, which have for a long time engaged the attention of students of diplomatics and paleography. lb. p. 3.

FORMOSUS 6l

from his birth and knowledge of their tongue would be more acceptable to the barbaric people who occupied Heriland's late diocese. When, however, it came to the Pope's ears that Fulk had, in giving the see, "like a benefice " {beneficiali more), to Heriland, set aside a lawfully elected candidate, and had even sent the said candidate into exile when he wished to turn to Rome for justice, Formosus sent him an order, " peremptory indeed, but fraternally expressed," to appear before1 him. With the issue of this, as of so many other affairs at this period, we are unacquainted.

Similarly, though we know that this Pope had relations Formosus with this country, the unsatisfactory nature of the historical England. data of the period leaves us very much in the dark in connection with them. Among a number of documents which Eadmer, the disciple and friend of S. Anselm (tn37)> describes2 as in part obliterated through age, and, in part from the material on v/hich they were written (papyrus), quite worn away, he found a letter3 of Pope Formosus to Plegmund, and he has cited a few lines of it.

Rome was at this period very well acquainted with the

1 Frod., Hist. R., iv. 3.

2 " Haec (privilegia) in Archivis Ecclesias Dni. Salvatoris reperta. . . . Sed aliquibus eorum nimia vetustate obliterans, aliquibus in cartis ex biblo (papyrus) compositis, et peregrinis caracteribus inscriptis, et ipsis quoque ex majori parte detritis," etc. Hist. Nov., 1. v. p. 126 f. , ed. 1623.

3 This is the last of the series of papal letters given in Malmesbury {De Gest. Pont., 1. i.) of which the genuineness is called in question (Haddan and Stubbs, Councils, Hi., 65 n.). But, in view of the descrip- tion of the documents given above by Eadmer, and of the well-known fact that at this period a very large proportion of papal documents were written on papyrus, and hence have to such a large extent perished, Lingard {Anglo-S. Ch., i. 80 n.) was no doubt right in admitting "the authenticity of the letter .... on the authority of Eadmer." And this the more justly that the series is in harmony with the letter of John VIII., which is to be found in his authentic register.

62 FORMOSUS

condition of things in England. Each year from 887 to 890 the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records the sending of alms or letters to Rome. The country, owing to the ravages of the Danes, was in a sorry plight, whether looked at intellectually and morally or physically. But in his kingdom of Wessex the great Alfred was making heroic exertions to improve the state of affairs. Doubtless with a view to seconding his efforts, Formosus made persistent efforts to rouse the bishops of the country to more energetic action. That he was well supported by Plegmund, one of the able and good men whom Alfred had gathered round him, appears from the following letter of the Pope to the bishops of England, which Malmesbury has preserved for us (895): — "When we had heard that the abominable rites of the pagans had revived in your country, and that like dumb dogs you kept silent, we were minded to cut you off from the body of the Church. But, as we have learnt from our beloved brother, Plegmund, that you have at last aroused yourselves .... we send you the blessing of God and St. Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, and beg you to persevere in the good work you have begun. . . . Suffer not the flocks entrusted to your charge to be any further injured by a dearth of pastors. But when one dies, let another fit candidate be forthwith canonically elected to replace him on the motion of the primate. And he, as you well know, is our venerable brother Plegmund, whose dignity we will not suffer to be in any way lessened, but nominate him our vicar .... and by the authority of God and of blessed Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, we command all to obey his canonical dispositions." l

What was the result of this letter is not satisfactorily known. The issue of the affair, as stated by Malmesbury,2

1 Ep. For., ap. Malms., ubi supra, ed. P. L., t. 179, p. 1471.

2 De Gest. Reg., ii., § 129.

FORMOSUS 63

is clearly, to say the least, inaccurate, as he makes Formosus write in 905 to Edward, the son and successor of Alfred.1 However, out of the chaos of the statements on the subject two facts may be plucked. The Pope's recommendations relative to the bishoprics were carried out at last, somewhere about 909, in the reign of Sergius III.; and about the same time Plegmund went to Rome " and took the alms for the people and for the king," says 2 the nobleman chronicler, Ethelwerd. No doubt he also went to confer with the Pope on the "bishopric ques- tion,"3 though the action which Malmesbury attributes to Formosus must, with our later historians, be assigned to Sergius. At a council called together by Edward, and presided over by Plegmund, five new bishoprics, making seven in all, were established among the West Saxons. After the council Malmesbury tells us how "with splendid presents " Plegmund went to Rome (evidently the mission spoken of by Ethelwerd) and "with great humility paci- fied the Pope. He then read to him the decrees of the king, with which the Pope {i.e., Sergius) was greatly pleased." They were then duly confirmed by him, and such as should attempt to interfere with them were condemned.

Incidents such as this let us see how the unceasing exhortations, threats, and praises of the Roman pontiffs greatly helped to preserve the nations of the West from sinking back into the barbarism from which their ministers had first drawn them.

1 Formosus died in 896. Rule, in the R.S. ed. of Eadmer, p. 271, gives as a " probable emendation of nongentesimo quinto," " quinto de nongentesimo, i.e., 895." Alfred was still king of England in 895.

2 Chron., an. 908. Count Ethelwerd died probably at the close of the tenth century. Cf. an entry in his Missal (pp. 1-2) by Leofric, first bishop of Exeter (1050) ; ed. Warren, Oxford, 1883.

3 Cf. also Hist, of the Church in England, Flanagan, i. 197.

64 FORMOSUS

he Formosus had also to intervene in the ecclesiastical affairs

ecman"! of Germany, in a case which had been begun under his :hBremcn predecessor. When Hamburg had been burnt by the SSLbvg. Danes (845), Pope Nicholas1 had joined its see to that of Bremen, and exempted the combined see of Hamburg- Bremen from the jurisdiction of the archiepiscopal see of Cologne. The loss of Bremen had never pleased the archbishops of Cologne ; and Herimann made an attempt to recover the former rights of his see over it. This was during the episcopate of Adalgarius, who, according to a later writer,2 " received the pastoral staff from King Arnulf, and the pallium from Pope Stephen" (VI.). The dis- pute was referred in the first instance to Pope Stephen, who ordered 3 (890) both parties to send delegates to Rome. As only the representatives of Adalgarius, and then Adal- garius himself, presented themselves at Rome, Stephen decided not to settle the matter out of hand himself, "lest the affair might spring up again and the quarrel wound fraternal charity." But he ordered Fulk, archbishop of Rheims, to convoke in his name a synod to meet at Worms, " in the month of August, on the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, Mother of God, in the forthcoming tenth indiction " (892). At this synod both Herimann and Adalgarius were commanded to present themselves,4 and the Pope engaged to settle the question once for all on the report of Fulk. Before the time fixed for the holding of the synod, Stephen was no more. Formosus, however, adhered to what had been decreed by Stephen, and ordered Herimann to present himself at the council, and then, along with

1 Cj. vol. ii. pp. 126, 271 of this work.

* Adam of Bremen (1. i., § 48), who wrote, in the second half of the eleventh century, a valuable work on the history of the bishops of Hamburg, ap. P. /.., t. 146.

8 Ep. 1 2, ap. P. /,., t. 1 29, p. 800.

4 Ep. 32, ib. Cf. Frod., Hist. A'., iv. 1.

FORMOSUS 6$

Adalgarius and. delegates from the council, to come to Rome for the apostolical decision ; for the council had only " to hear and discuss, and not to pass sentence." 1 No synod was held at Worms, but a meeting of bishops, presided over by the archbishop of Mayence,2 took place at Frankfort. Of this assembly word was sent to the Pope, and he was assured that the suffragans of the diocese of Cologne unanimously declared that, up to the time of Adal- garius, the bishops of Bremen had always acknowledged their dependence upon the See of Cologne. The bearers of this information were priests who were sent by Herimann to represent him, and to plead his cause before the Pope.3 For some reason or other, Adalgarius on this occasion neither came himself to Rome nor sent representatives. The consequence was that, for peace' sake, Formosus com- promised. He decided that till such time as the city of Hamburg had recovered itself, the See of Bremen should remain united to that of Hamburg ; and that in important ecclesiastical affairs the archbishop of Hamburg, not as a subject,4 but as a brother, should assist at the delibera- tions of the archbishop of Cologne. On the complete re-establishment of Hamburg, Bremen was to revert to Cologne. " Even among men of the world," concludes the Pope, "it is regarded as altogether unwarrantable to interfere with the rights of others ; how much more un- warrantable is it that most holy bishops should transgress the boundaries laid down by the Fathers, and that those should quarrel who ought to set an example of peace to

1 Ep. Form. 3, ap. P. L.

2 Hatto, to whom Formosus had granted the pallium (891). Marianus Scotus in Chron.

3 Ep. Form. 5. Because they did not use this letter of Formosus, this affair has been wrongly represented by both ancient (Adam of Bremen) and modern (Baronius, Fleury, etc.) authors.

4 " Non subjectione aliqua sed affectu fraternas charitatis." lb. VOL. IV. 5

66 FORMOSUS

those subject to them."1 This decision of the Pope was upheld at the council or diet of Tribur (895), at which were present, besides the bishops, King Arnulf and many of the nobility.2 A "brotherly" subjection, however, was not calculated to satisfy either party — certainly not Adalgarius; and about the year 905 he obtained from Sergius III. a bull3 annulling the decision of Formosus, and declaring the See of Hamburg-Bremen independent, in accordance with the decree of Nicholas I.

As we have said already, Formosus died (April 4, 896) soon after his coronation of Arnulf. It may be readily believed that it was with no regret that the octogenarian pontiff laid himself down to die. For though full details of his life are lacking,4 we know that trouble was his lot not only for some time before he became Pope, but even whilst he was wearing the tiara. The party which so outraged his memory after his death was no doubt actively working against him while he lived.

As his epitaph has not come down to us, what Frodoard (who is thought to have seen and used it), says of him may be given as one : —

" Pnesul hie egregius Formosus laudibus altis Kvehitur, castus, parous sibi, largus egenis, Bulgaricse genti fidei qui semina sparsit, Delubra destruxit, populum caslestibus armis Instruxit, tolerans discrimina plurima, promptus,

inpluni tribuens ut sint adversa ferenda Et bene viventi metuenda incommoda nulla."

1 Ep. 5, p. 843. Cf. ep. 6, where Formosus tells Herimann what he has done.

1 L.ibbe, Cone, ix. 438. Adam Rrem., n. 51, ap. P. L., t. 146, p. 492.

3 Jaflte, ;jj$ 2716 and 2721. But in the new edition the numbers 3537 and 3549 show that many modern authors look on these bulls as spurious, or perhaps rather as adulterated.

♦ Fulk of Rheims (ap. Frod., Hist. R., iv. c. 1) wrote : "Scrupulum denique sibi dicit ac singultum movere, quod audierat .... sanctam Romanam ecclesiam turbari."

FORMOSUS 67

Frodoard praises the Pope for his chastity, for his nearness to himself, and for his generosity towards the poor. He tells how Formosus sowed the seeds of faith among the Bulgarians, and how he cheerfully suffered many trials, giving an example as to how adversity should be borne, and how no difficulties need be feared by the man who leads a good life.

The two silver grossos or denarii of this Pope which Coins, are known, and which weigh, the one 22 and the other 21 grains, bear on the obverse the name Formosus and the initials or full name of Scs. Petrus, and on the reverse Vvido Imp. and Roma.1

Among the other good works placed to the credit of Church Formosus by his ardent anonymous defender,2 is mentioned tions. his care for th^ churches of Rome, some of which he either built, rebuilt, or adorned. And in this connection Benedict of Soracte, whose chronological arrangement of the Popes of this period is as extraordinary as. his Latin, tells 3 us that Formosus decorated the Church of St. Peter with paintings. Part of this decoration, of which a de- scription has come down to us, was in existence till the demolition by Paul V. of the eastern portion of the old basilica. According to tradition, the portraits of the Popes, which also adorned the old basilica, were the work of Formosus, and formed a portion of his adornment of the walls.4 According to Lanciani,5 there were in the old basilica of St. Peter two sets of portrait heads of the Popes, a lower set " on the freize above the capitals of the columns, the other on the walls of the nave above the cornice." The lower series was painted, or rather restored, by order of Nicholas III. ; the upper and more important series

1 Cinagli, Monete de' Pafti. 2 Invert., p. 826. 3 C. 29, p. 41.

4 Duchesne, L. P., i., p. xxv., and ii. 227.

5 Pagan and Christia7i Rome, p. 209.

68 FORMOSUS

" seem to have been painted at the time of Pope Formosus, as were also the fresco panels which appear in the drawings of Ciampini." Needless to say, all this work, though important, was executed in very poor style. Benedict XII. thought of restoring it with the aid of Giotto ; but death prevented him from effecting any very extensive reno- vation.1

In view of the suspicion as to his character, which must attach itself to the name of Formosus, because of the charges levelled against him by John VIII., and of the treat- ment his dead body received at the hands of his successor Stephen (VI.) VII., it may be pertinently asked how those who knew him judged of him. It might not inspire us with much confidence in his virtue to find that his professed partisans, Auxilius, Vulgarius, and whoever was the author of the Invectiva, speak highly of him. And yet it must be acknowledged that they do so in a way which shows they feared not contradiction in what they said in his praise. To his nameless defender, he is 2 " a most excellent teacher (doctor egregius)\ and if he is raised to the Papacy, it is due "to his upright character" (dignis ejus moribus promerentibus) (p. 825). And if, on the contrary, he is degraded from his episcopal rank, the Invectiva knows not whether to attribute the deed to excessive (or ill advised)

1 Cf. Miintz, Recherches sur les MSS. archdol. de J. Grtmaldt, p. 247 ff. There was another set of painted busts of the Popes in the Church of St. John Lateran, which were executed by order of Nicholas III. They were destroyed by accident and restoration. The mosaic series now to be seen in St. Paul's, outside the walls, has been produced since the burning of the old basilica in 1823; but it has closely followed the copies of the old series which had been made in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Some of the old medallions had been painted as far back as the fifth century. Lanciani, I.e.

* P. 831. " Vir sanctus et Justus, atque catholicus ; segregatus a peccatoribus." //>.

FORMOSUS 69

zeal, or to spite.1 Auxilius declares 2 that, with the exception of his rivals {exceptis cemulis), it was acknowledged by all that he was most devoted to fasting, prayer, alms-deeds, and good works of every kind ; that his chastity was re- markable and showed itself in his angelical countenance. Vulgarius dwells3 equally on the abstemiousness and conspicuous purity of Formosus. These authors extol the success of his mission among the Bulgarians, and call attention to the splendid reception 4 given to him by the people of Rome on his return at the close of 867 or the beginning of 868. As further evidence of his sound character, they point to the favour with which he was regarded by Nicholas I. and by Hadrian II., to the unanimity of his election to the chair of Peter, and to the fact that nothing was said against him by his immediate successor.

But the praises of Formosus are sounded not merely by declared partisans. The librarian Anastasius, or whoever was the author of the Life of Nicholas in the Liber Pontifi- calis, testifies 5 to his "great sanctity." In the preface to the Latin translation of the acts of the eighth general council, of which Anastasius was certainly the author, " the holy life" of Formosus is spoken of;6 and in the letter at the head of his translation of the Greek biography of St.

1 " Nescimus zelo an noxa fuerit." Invert., p. 825.

2 Auxil., In def. s. ord., c. 10, p. 70. " Et castimonia prasditus et, quod est praecipuum, modestiam, quae cordi ejus inerat, angelico praeferebat vultu."

3 Libel, de causa Form., p. 131. Cf. Libel, cujusdam inquir., p. 1 109. " Is est profecto ille, qui in omni vita sua tantae gravitatis forma extitit, ut vinum non biberet, carnis gustum nesciret, femineae copulae expers octogenarius virgineum suum corpus, hominem exuens, terrae commendaret."

4 "Ad mcenia tua cum crucis est triumpho reversus." Invert, in Rom., p. 831.

5 " Magnae sanctitatis," c. 59. 6 Ap. P. L., t. 129, p. 20.

70 F0RM0SUS

John Calybite (876), which the librarian addressed to For- mosus, he cannot praise him enough. He extols even his physical beauty, and adjures the Romans not merely to cease to attack such noble sons of theirs, but to embrace them with the sincerest love.1 It was his " holy life " which won for him the confidence2 and praise of no less a person than Hincmar of Rheims. Even to the slanderer Liutprand,3 Formosus was " a most religious Pope." And he was all in all to the Bulgarian king Bogoris.

Against all this there is his condemnation4 by John VIII. By that pontiff he was accused of intriguing with Bogoris to be made bishop of the Bulgarians ; of wishing to pass from his own see to a greater (viz. to that of Rome);5 and of treason against the emperor, Charles the Bald. The profound esteem which the Bulgarian monarch had conceived for Formosus might easily give rise to the first charge. What force there was in the last accusation may be gathered from the fact that it was to the kingdom of Charles that he fled for refuge. And his unfortunate association with many of John's enemies would furnish grounds enough for the suspicion that he was aiming at the Papacy. By Stephen (VI.) VII., who so outraged his memory, the only accusation made against him to justify the vile treatment to which his body was subjected was his translation from the See of Porto to that of Rome. That Stephen acted as he did towards the corpse of Formosus from such a reason, is the less to be believed since he him-

1 " Discatque Roma tandem suos non spernere sed colligere, non insequi sed amplecti, non invidiam stimulis cruentare, sed medullis caritatis amare." Analecta Bolland., t. xv. p. 259 f., ap. Lapotre, l.e "souptr" dejean Diacre.

* " Intimat quia magnum in ipso (Formoso) haberet (Hincmarus) fiduciam." Frod., Hist. Rem., iii. c. 21.

1 Antip., i. c. 28, 29. • Ep. 24, an. 876, ap. P. Z., t. 126, p. 675.

6 Cf. supra, vol. iii. p. 237.

FORMOSUS 71

self was a bishop when he became Pope. And as there is no indication that Formosus was an ardent politician with views acutely opposed to those of Stephen, it is hard to sup- pose that the action of the latter was caused by any fanatical attachment of his to the imperial pretensions of the house of Spoleto, or by any opposite devotion on the part of Formosus to those of the Franks. It is quite possible, however, that, as some suppose, Stephen was a mere tool in the hands of the empress-mother Ageltruda, that he was merely the instrument she employed to manifest her hatred of the man who had brought trouble on her house. If this is not the case, Stephen must have been a personal foe of Formosus ; and in any case, his outrageous conduct with regard to him need not lessen our good opinion of that pontiff.

To account for the attitude of John VIII. towards him, it may perhaps be fair to suppose that, with all his learning and piety, Formosus may have been devoid of a sufficient share of "the cunning of the serpent." He may have lacked worldly astuteness enough to keep himself sufficiently aloof from the set upon whom fell the well- merited wrath of John VIII. If he was not simply a victim of calumny, it is more than likely that he was regarded by John as an enemy because he was seemingly being made a tool of by the unscrupulous party with which, by some bond unknown to us, he was connected.1 Formosus was condemned by John more owing to the faults of others than to his own.

He had been chosen Pope " on account of his genuine

1 In harmony with this theory writes Auxilius {In def. ord. For., i. c. 3) : " Idem vero Formosus praesul mutua cum eis (George of Aventino and the nomenclator Gregory) videbatur dilectione connexus et idcirco ab eodem papa non sequis oculis aspiciebatur." And very naturally. It is to be noted that Auxilius does not say a word in defence of Gregory and his party.

72

FORMOSUS

piety and knowledge of divine things " 1 Hut if he did not fulfil the expectations raised by his election, it was not because he ceased to be good and pious, but because he had always been somewhat deficient in character, and in ability to form a correct estimate of the character of others.

1 Liut., Antif.) i. c. 29.

Coins of Formosus. (From Promis.)

BONIFACE VI.

April? 896.

With Boniface VI., a Roman and the son of one Adrian, Unsatis- a bishop, we enter upon the gloomiest portion of the nature of gloomy period of which we are treating. From the death of before us. Formosus to the accession of John X., a period of eighteen years, we shall have to write the history, or rather we shall have to name, no less than eleven Popes. And if there is " nothing in a name," we shall certainly not have much to record to interest the reader in many of the Popes whose names will now be brought before him. And as we are dealing with a period of violent turmoil, it should not surprise anyone to find scum occasionally rising to the surface.

Of Boniface, who was certainly the successor of For- Boniface, mosus, and who reigned but fifteen days, and was carried off by the gout,1 it is sometimes said that he has no right to a place among the Popes, and that "the council of John IX. of 898 pronounced his election null."2 It is urged that his election was due to a popular commotion,

1 Cf. the appendix to Auxilius, In def. P. Form., p. 95 ; Frodoard ; and the Annals of Fu/da, an. 896. " Qui podagrico morbo correptus, vix xv dies supervixisse reperitur."

2 Gregorovius, Rome, iii. 225 n.

73

74 BONIFACE VI.

and that before his election he had shown himself so

vicious that he had been degraded from the subdiaconate

and afterwards from the priesthood. This assertion is

based on the third canon of the council just quoted. There

it is decreed that, though Formosus was transferred from

the See of Porto " from necessity and on account of his

merits," no rule must be drawn from an exceptional

indulgence. " Nor may anyone," it continues, " who has

been degraded by a synod from any ecclesiastical rank,

and not canonically restored to it, presume to advance

higher, as Boniface, who had been deprived first of the

subdiaconate and afterwards of the priesthood, was enabled

to do by the aid of the arm of the people."1 As several

most distinguished historians have inferred that the case

here stigmatised is that of Boniface VI., it would perhaps

be bold to say that the third canon of the council of John

IX. does not refer to the successor of Formosus. But it

certainly may not ; and several reasons make one hesitate

to believe that it does. The Boniface of the canon is not

styled Pope, nor is he connected with the See of Rome by

any title whatever, while there is no doubt that Boniface VI.

was recognised as Pope by his contemporaries. Boniface

VI. would surely not have seemed to the council so

deserving of condemnation as Stephen (VI.) VII., who

is nevertheless described (can. i) as "of pious memory"

(Pub recordationis). It would appear then that, if the

Boniface of the canon were the successor of Formosus,

his name would have been qualified by some official

addition, or by some description connecting him with

the See of Rome. The more so that he was acknow-

1 "Sed neque de gradu ecclesiastico synodice ejectum et non canonice restilutum, ad altiora provehere ullus prsesumat, prout de Bonifacio, primo de subdiaconatu, postmodum de presbyteratu de- positum popularis manus agere pnesumpsit." Can. 3, ap. Labbe, ix. 503.

BONIFACE VI. 75

ledged as Pope, not only by his contemporaries, as we have remarked already, but also by later pontiffs, who quote a privilege of his in favour of the Church of Grado.1 Finally, if Boniface VI. had been a degraded priest foisted by a mob into the chair of Peter, Frodoard would never have set him down as " almus," bountiful or gracious, and assigned him heaven as his reward.2 Thus does he sing of him : —

" Hinc subit ad modicum vates Bonifacius almus,

Ter quinos hie in arce dies explevit honoris.

Culmina mox mutans superat fastigia celsa,

Inque brevi spatio quaasita cacumina scandens

Inter Apostolici proceres adscribitur albi."

The sepulchral monument of Boniface, whose pontificate Tomb, of fifteen days was spent apparently in the month of April 896, seems to have been still standing "in the portico of the Popes " when Peter Mallius copied inscriptions in the days of Eugenius III. The worthy canon has preserved for us a fragment, in this case an ill-transcribed one, of the inscription it bore : —

" Atria magnifici sunt membris plena s&pulchri (or sepulti ?) Sedis apostolicae Bonifati presulis almi."

De Rossi conjectures that the fragment should read thus : —

" Atria magnificis (quae) sunt (jam) plena sepulchri(s) Sedis apostolicas Bonifati presulis almi (Suscipiunt corpus, etc.)."3

1 Jane, 3509. 2 P. 829. 3 From Duchesne, L. P., ii. 228.

STEPHEN (VI.) VII

A.D. 896-897.

Sources. — To those given under Formosus add three letters, ap. P. Z., t. 129.

Emperors, etc. See p. 40. •ly Stephen VII., called VI. by such as do not include in

cer.

the list of Popes the Stephen (II.) who was elected Pope but not consecrated, was, according to the Catalogues, a Roman and the son of a priest John. Taking it for granted that Stephen was born before the said John was ordained priest, the reader cannot fail to be struck by the number of those who at this period became Popes, and counted a priest or bishop as their father. It must have been, even to married men, an object of ambition to be enrolled in the ranks of the Roman clergy. Hence, no sooner were they free from their matrimonial engagements, than many at once became priests.

The same Catalogues inform us that, before he became Pope, Stephen had been one of the Campanian bishops ; and, more precisely, Auxilius1 says that Pope Formosus

1 Ed. Dum., p. 95. " Post hunc (Bonifacium) Stephanus, qui fuit per quinquennium in Aganina ecclesia episcopus." That he was the suc-

76

STEPHEN (VI.) VII. 77

consecrated him bishop of Anagni, and that he had occupied that position for five years when he was elected Pope.

He was chosen to replace Boniface, if not at the begin- Becomes

r b Pope.

ning of May, at least before June n, 896, as there is extant a diploma of the latter date which shows that Stephen was then Pope.1 It is frequently asserted that he was a violent partisan of the house of Spoleto, and bitterly opposed to the German Arnulf. But if that were the case, the agents of Arnulf, who were in power in Rome at the time of Stephen's election, cannot have known their man ; and certainly at first Stephen dated 2 his privileges by the years of the reign of Arnulf, and seemed to be in sympathy with him.

His pursuing the History of the Church of Rheims led Corre-

v b J J J spondence

Frodoard in due course to analyse the correspondence with Fuik. between Archbishop Fulk and Pope Stephen. After ex- pressing his devotion to the See of Rome, and assuring Stephen, as he had already assured Formosus, that he was most anxious to visit " the threshold of the Apostles," but that various difficulties had interfered with the accomplish- ment of his wishes, Fulk informs3 the Pope that he has at length succeeded in bringing about peace between Eudes (Odo) and Charles the Simple. In his reply Stephen expresses himself as dissatisfied with Fulk's excuses for not coming to Rome — others have contrived to come — and bids him present himself at the synod which he is going to hold in September 896. Unfortunately, we are not told for what end the Pope had determined to summon a council to

cessor of Boniface is also clear from the Catalogues, Frodoard, the Invert., p. 1098, etc.

1 Jaffe, i. p. 439-

2 Ep. 1. "Datum .... imperante dom. Aug. Arnulpho .... magno imperatore anno primo."

3 This abstract of the correspondence between Fulk and Stephen is given 1. iv. c. 4.

78 STEPHEN (VI.) VII.

which distant prelates were to be invited. It cannot have been for the purposes for which the infamous synod of the beginning of 897 was held. Stephen would never have dared to bring bishops, over whom he had no civil control, to witness the gruesome sight on which the assembly of 897 gazed. If a dignified council of many bishops from all parts had been held in September, perhaps the wicked farce of the following year would never have been perpetrated.

In sending an answer to the reprimand of the Pope, Fulk showed that he felt it; and felt it the more that he knew it was undeserved. He therefore begged the Pope not to listen to what uncharitable people might say against him. He renewed his protestations of loyalty " to the glorious See of the Prince of the Apostles and its holy rulers," informed the Pope he was sending to Rome a bishop to represent him, and assured him that, as soon as he really could, and Zuentibold (Arnulfs bastard son and king of Lorraine) ceased to block the roads, he would certainly set out for Rome. In conclusion, he begged the Pope " by his apostolic authority " to repress the tyranny of Zuentibold. We also find1 Fulk recommending his cause to a prelate at Rome. The result of all this was that Stephen granted ■ his request to remain in his diocese for the time, but instructed him to send Honoratus, bishop of Beauvais, and Rodulf of Laon, to take part in a synod to be held at Ravenna. It would certainly seem, from these different allusions to the holding of synods, that Stephen had, at least in the beginning of his pontificate, a strong wish to promote the general good.

Except that he confirmed the privileges of the archi- episcopal church of Narbonne, and those of the monastery

1 This abstract of the correspondence between Fulk and Stephen is given 1. iv. c. 6. ■ lb.

STEPHEN (VI.) VII. 79

of Vezelay1 .(Yonne), and deposed Argrim,2 to whom Formosus had granted the use of the pallium, from the See of Langres, we know no more of Stephen VII. but what he did at the Roman synod of 897, which covered his name with lasting infamy, and brought about his death.

As an augury of the terrible events of which the year 897 Fail of the was to be a witness, it opened with the complete collapse basilica. of the venerable basilica of the Lateran. This untoward event, mentioned in the Catalogues, is placed before the holding of the synod by the author of the Annates Ala- mannici? " Negligently built," writes Lanciani,4 " with spoils from earlier edifices, as were the other churches of the time of Constantine, the basilica had long since begun to show signs of decay. The walls of the nave rested on columns of various kinds of marble, differing in height and strength. These yielding under the pressure of the roof, bulged outward so far that the ends of the beams of the roof-trusses came out of their sockets, and the building collapsed."

The ghastly synod we have now to describe, fortunately The synod unique in the history of Christendom, took place probably ° in the month of January 897.5 Our account of it may well

1 Ep. 1 and 3, ap. Migne. What is given as ep. 2 there, is a letter of Stephen IV., c. 768.

2 Jaffe, 3513 (2699). His decision was altered "for the better" by John IX. Labbe, ix. 494, 5.

3 Ap. M. G. SS.} i. 53.

4 Destruction of Ancient Rome, p. 159. Lanciani concludes the paragraph we have cited by noting that " the ursurpers of the Apostolic See bore from the basilica all its treasures." The "usurpers" referred to would seem to be Christopher only. Cf infra, p. 112.

5 For both the I?ivect., p. 826, and Auxilius (D., p. 71) speak of the body of Formosus as having been nine months in the grave when it was exhumed. Or at least the Invect. actually mentions the number ; while the number before " months " (mensis) has dropped out of the text of Auxilius, which reads : " Corpus ejusdem Formosi in eundem conventum afferri praecepit et quia vivo nihil nocere poterat, saltern ex putrido

80 STEPHEN (VI.) VII.

be opened with the words with which Auxilius x begins one of his pamphlets : " ' Who will give water to my head, and a fountain of tears to my eyes?' (Jer. ix. i); and I will weep, not as Jeremias, not simply for those slain in body, but, what is worse, for the loss of souls, and for the dire deeds which have been publicly wrought in the head of all the churches .... by whose blessings the whole Church fructifies, and by whose judgment the faults of all the world are corrected." But with the same Auxilius we may console ourselves that though we shall see " the floods descend and the winds howl, the same Lord comforts me who deigned to promise the Prince of the Apostles : ' Thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my church ; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it"' (S. Matt. xvi. 18).

Unwillingly and in fear2 a number of the Roman clergy were gathered together in synod by the Pope's orders. As the emperor Lambert and his warlike mother Ageltruda had entered Rome " a few days3 before," it is very probable that Stephen himself also acted as he did in fear of the imperial pair.

No sooner, indeed, had Arnulf left Italy than his authority there came to an end. Berengarius and Lambert at once asserted their sway over sections of Italy, and

cadavere, cui jam (nonus?) inerat mensis, suam satiaret feritatem." Diimmler notes that after 'jam' there is a blank space, large enough for a word such as nonus. Eleven months is assigned by an anony- mous Beneventan author of the tenth century (?). Ap. M. G. SS. ob., p. 497 ; or R. I. SS., 1 1, p. i. p. 280.

:. I)., p. i.

m. 2 of the synod of 898 (wrongly referred by some, e.g. Labbe, to 904). " Episcopi . . . . et reliquus clerus qui eidem synodo inter- fuerint .... coactos se terroris metu ac formidine interfuisse confessi sunt. Labbe, ix. 503.

Ibant (imperator Lambertus, ejusque mater imperatrix) enim Romam. . . . Paucis quoque post hinc diebus elapsis, Stephanus Formosum ex sepulcro abjecerat," etc., says the anonymous Beneventan just quoted, ap. M. G. SS. Lang., ib.

STEPHEN (VI.) VII. 8 1

put to death such of the imperial officials as opposed them.1 Ageltruda and Lambert, as we have just said, again made themselves masters of Rome, and found there a willing2 or unwilling instrument of their spirit of revenge against the man who had favoured their rival Arnulf.

The body of the unfortunate Formosus, still more or less entire, but of course half corrupt, was disinterred, and dragged before the assembly. Clad in full pontificals, the corpse was placed on a seat, and a deacon was assigned to defend the accused pontiff. A formal charge was brought against him. " When once deposed he ought not to have performed the functions of his office; and if he did, he ought not to have passed from one see to another." 3 On these counts Formosus was condemned. " If the Bishop of Rome," urges4 the Invectiva, " is not to be judged by any one during his life, after his death is he to be judged by any one ? When put to the question, what reply did he make ? Had he made answer, that horrible assembly would have broken up in abject terror, and fled from the place one after another. And the Lord God would have said : ' Formosus, who hath condemned thee ? ' To this he would have said : ■ No man, Lord ' ; and the Lord would have added : ( Neither will I condemn thee.' "

However, by the synod of Pope Stephen, Formosus was anathematised and his ordinations declared null and void.5 Then was his dead body subjected to the most barbarous violence ; 6 it was stripped of its sacred vestments down

1 Hermannus Contr., Chron., ann. 895, 6. Cf. Ann. Fuld., 896.

2 According to Herman he was a willing tool : " tyrannis favens, et Arnolfum odiens." An. 896.

3 Invert., p. 828. 4 P. 826.

6 " Irritam faciens cunctam ipsius ordinationem." Anon. Benev.

6 Vulg., ap. Diim., p. 131. " Corporeo siquidem suco hseserat busto, unde non tarn facile discerpi poterat, cum, ecce, subito rabidi duo frenetica frendentes sagacitate fixis pedibus, horrible dictu, super

VOL. IV. 6 ,

82 STEPHEN (VI.) VII.

to the very hair-shirt with which the unfortunate pontiff had mortified his body in life. Clad then in the garments of a layman, the body, after two fingers of the right hand had been cut off, was buried (c. February 897), by the order of Stephen, in some place reserved for the burial of pilgrims.1 It was even said that, when the body was being dragged forth for burial, fresh blood flowed out of its mouth on to the pavement.2 At this point our authorities, among whom up to this there has been an awful agreement, part company. While some, as Auxilius,3 state that Stephen himself, after a short time, ordered the body of his predecessor to be once more exhumed and then thrown into the Tiber, the ninth canon of the council (an. 898), so frequently cited, makes out with greater probability that this last outrage was due to treasure- seekers, who some time later had violated the tomb in the hope of finding valuables therein.

When this terrible synod was over, Stephen took measures to carry into effect what had been there decreed with regard to the ordinations performed by Formosus. lie did not, however, interfere with any prelates at a distance,4 who had been consecrated by Formosus ; nor, indeed, did he reconsecrate any who had been so or- dained. But he made them sign and hand over to him

venerabile corpus sacri pontificis cruda agitatione totam compagem substantia? enerviter ruperunt." Cf. his other pamphlet, ap. Migne, 109. 1 Aux., ap. I)., p. 71 ; /;//. ct Def, c. 30 ; Ann. Futd., an. 896, " Foras a solitum sepulture apostolicis locum, sepeliri pr;i:ccpit."

mguis exiit tanto jam tempore elapso,;' Anon. Benev. Cf ■m.

■/"., c. 30. Cf. Invert., 828, etc.

•rdinationes tamen ejus procul existcntes, sicut omnes nostrarum

onum testes existunt, exagitare non ausus est." Aux., p. 71. Cf

I per vim intus Roma? ct non (oris de-

phanus) nee tamen praesumpserat eos iterum consecrare."

us III., however, went further than this.

STEPHEN (VI.) VII. 83

a paper in which they declared that they resigned their offices.1

But Stephen's career of violence was destined to be short- Death of lived. He was seized, clothed as a monk, loaded with vn., 897. chains, thrown into a dungeon, and, somewhere about the close of July or the beginning of August, strangled. This much we know on good authority. It is so stated not only in his epitaph,2 composed by Sergius III. (907), who, of the same faction apparently as Stephen, speaks rather ap- provingly of his conduct towards Formosus, but also by Frodoard and Auxilius. We will quote the words of Frodoard, which, as usual, show traces of the influence of the epitaph : —

" Turn sextus Stephanus sacra regmina culmine carpit, Durus qui nostris, propriis at durior instat. Saeva quidem legat vivis, truciora sepultis. Folconemque minis, Formosum concutit actis. Concilium gregat infaustum, cui praesidet atrox.

1 There is scarcely any need to point out the mistakes made by Liutprand over this synod. He attributes it to Sergius III., and says that he reordained those who had been consecrated by Formosus. Antapod., i. 30. Browning has described this ghastly trial of Formosus in his The Ring and the Booh, vol. iv., p. 2 ff., ed. 1872.

2 " Hoc Stephani Papae clauduntur membra sacello

Sextus dictus erat ordine quippe Patrum. Hie primum repulit Formosi spurca superbi,

Culmina qui invasit Sedis Apostolicas Consilium instituit, praesedit pastor et ipsi ;

Lege satis fessis jura dedit famulis. Cumque Pater multum certaret dogmate sancto,

Captus et a sede pulsus in ima fuit. Carceris interea vinculis constrictus in imo

Strangulatus ubi exuerat hominem."

Post decimunque diem regnanti (for these two wrongly transcribed words, Watterich, i. 84, has regens Sedem hunc) transtulit annum Sergius hue (viz. before the Church, ante ecclesiam) Papa funera sacra colens." L. P., ii. 229.

Auxilius, I?i def. For., i. 10, " Pro talibus ausis quae ultio secuta sit eum vel quo laqueo miseram exhalauerit vitam, omnibus notum est."

84 STEPHEN (VI.) VII.

Praedecessorem abjiciens, ponensque patronum. Visus abhinc meritis dignam incurrisse ruinam, Captus et ipse, sacraque abjectus sede, tenebris Carceris injicitur, vinclisque innectitur atris, Et suffocatum crudo premit ultio letho."

But of the causes which brought about such a terrible termination to the life of a Vicar of Christ we have no in- formation from reliable authors, or even from the gossip of Liutprand. We may conjecture that Lambert, unable or unwilling to care for the tool he had used, left him to the vengeance of a righteously indignant people ; or what, under the circumstances, seems more likely, we may suppose that the faction of the nobility unfavourable to him got the upper hand, and took away his life lest he might ever be in a position to punish them for their rebellion. :oins. Of the two extant * silver coins of this Pope one bears the

name of Arnulf (" Arnolfvs Imp. Roma ") and the other that of Lambert (" Lamverto Imp. Roma "). Thus do they bear eloquent testimony to the fact that the German influence in Rome in the earlier part of Stephen's reign was replaced by Spoletan in the later. On the reverse of the coins in both cases there is the monogram of the Pope, itephen In passing under review the conduct of Stephen towards

F'ormosus. Formosus, it is hard to resist the conclusion that it is to be ascribed, at least in part, to the evil influence of the house of Spoleto, which, from the time of John VIII., had shown itself capable of perpetrating any act of violence against the Popes. But the seemingly whole-hearted manner in which Stephen lent himself to serve what we suppose to have been the ill-will of Lambert, makes one fear that he

1 Cinagli, p. 6. Promis, Moncte dci Rom. Pont., p. 76, notes that whereas the Arnulf coin weighs 24 grains, the other only weighs 18, " which proves the deterioration of the coinage " of the period ; for a similar variation of weight is to be observed in the monies of his immediate predecessors.

STEPHEN (VI.) VII.

85

had a share of that bitterly revengeful cruelty which has appeared but too often in the Italian from the days of the emperors Tiberius and Nero to those of Ezzelino de Romano and other tyrants of the later Middle Ages, and which has reappeared in the Italian assassins of kings and rulers of our own days. In every Christian century the hot hearts and cool heads of Italy have produced models of wickedness, side by side with men who have proved themselves masters in every material art, and models in the science of the saints. Italians are the authors of hymns to the Living God and to Satan of well-nigh equal merit.

Coins of Stephen VII. (From Promis.)

ROMANUS.

A.D. 897. Sources. — Two privileges, ap. P. Z., t. 129.

omanus. Gallese, a town of some importance during the Middle Ages, nearly midway between Orte and Civita Castellana, which had already given one Pope (Marinus I.) to the Church, was the birthplace of the short-lived successor of Stephen (VI.) VII., Romanus. Pope in August, he was dead in November. From the Catalogues it appears that he was the son of Constantine, and priest of the title of St. Peter, advincula. One of them also adds that " he was afterwards made a monk." But as the same is said in other Cata- logues of his predecessor Stephen, it is not unlikely that some ceremony of degradation was performed on that pontiff before he was strangled, and that the notice refers to him, and not to Romanus at all. Duchesne 1 calls attention to the fact that St. Silverius and Christopher, who were both deposed, are also said to have been made monks.

[is *cts. Of the circumstances of his election, or of his attitude towards his immediate predecessor, nothing is known. It

1 L. P., ii. 230. 86

ROMANUS

87

is possible, at any rate, that he was freely elected, and that he was no creature of the house of Spoleto ; for Lambert must have left Rome soon after the mock trial of Formosus, in order to make head against Adalbert, marquis of Tuscany, the most powerful noble in Italy, who had thoughts of rendering himself independent.1 Romanus reigned long enough to grant the pallium to Vitalis of Grado,2 to confirm to the Spanish bishops of Elna (Rousillon) and Gerona,3 who had come to Rome for the purpose, the various possessions of their sees, and to coin money.4

That he was a virtuous man may be inferred from the words of Frodoard : —

" Post hunc (Stephanum) luce brevi Romani regmina surgunt. Quatuor haud plenos tractans is culmina menses, ^Ethere suscipitur, meritos sortitus honores."

p. 194 ; and the bull of

1 Cf. Balan, Storia d? Italia, ii. 428.

2 Dandolo, Ckron., ap. R. I. SS.) John XIX. of Dec. 1024.

3 The two, ap. P. L , t. 129. The bishopric of Elna was afterwards transferred to Perpignan.

4 Bearing the name of the emperor Lambert on one side, and the monogram of the Pope with "Scs. Petrus" on the other.

//

	- -. i
	"5tr^\
w?*
if	83r m
	jK^t/i
\*\C	? a y
NX/	%:^S

Coin of Romanus. (From Promis.)

THEODORE II.

A.D. 897.

As this Pope only reigned for twenty days, it is very prob- able that the month of December saw the beginning and the end of his pontificate. But he did important work during that brief period, and deserved to receive high praise from Frodoard not only for his virtues, but for the efforts he made to quench the faction fires which were burning so fiercely in Rome. He was the son of Photius, and the brother of Bishop Theosius. He had been ordained priest by Stephen (V.) VI.1

As soon as he became Pope, he showed that he disapproved of the action of Stephen (VI.) VI I. in deposing those within the city of Rome who had been ordained by Formosus. He allowed them to resume their rights at once,2 returned to them and ordered to be burnt the written acts of resignation which Stephen had exacted from them, and caused them even formally to be restored to their functions in a synod.3

1 Cf. L. P., and Aux., ap. D., p. 95.

2 Auxilius, De ord. Fortn., i., c. 4. "Eos namque quos Stephanus secum in Ecclesia vestiri prohibuit, papa Theodorus, . . . . et vestiri et suum agere officium pmecepit." Cf. Aux., ap. D., 95 : "Hie (Theo.) est qui reconciliavit ordinationem Formosi."

3 John IX. (an. 898) ordered the reading of the acts of the synod of Pope Theodore on this subject. Cf. Mansi, Concil.t xviii. 221. The councils of John IX. are given more fully in Mansi than in the earlier editions of the councils.

88

THEODORE II. 89

Besides thus doing justice to the authority of Formosus, The he did justice also to his outraged body. When writing Formosus the Life of Stephen VII., we left the body of Formosus in the Tiber. Of its recovery and subsequent treatment by Theodore, Auxilius has given x the following account : — The same night that the body of Formosus was thrown into the Tiber (viz. by the treasure-seekers, as we suppose,2) a terrible storm broke over the city. The Tiber, as usual, was soon in a flood. Carried along by the rushing river, the corpse was freed from the weights which kept it down, and finally thrown up on to the bank near the Church of St. Acontius at Porto. Three days after this, Formosus appeared to a certain monk in a vision, and bade him go and bury his dead body which had been cast up on shore. The monk did as he was bid, but in fear buried the body secretly. Word, however, of what had happened was brought to Pope Theodore. By his orders, the body, still entire, was brought back to the city with the greatest pomp, with the singing of psalms and hymns, with lights and incense. Clad once more in pontifical vestments, it was conveyed to the basilica of St. Peter, and placed beside the confession. There, in presence of the Pope, Mass was said for the unhappy pontiff, and his body was restored to its tomb.3 Liutprand assures 4 us that he had it " from most

1 D., p. 72. According to Liutprand, Antap., i. 31, the body of Formosus was found by fishermen. One thing is therefore certain, viz. that the body was recovered from the Tiber.

2 Vide supra, p. 82. From the fact that the body of Formosus was " entire " when recovered from the Tiber, and in such a state as to be able to be reclad with vestments, it is obvious it cannot have been thrown into the river by Stephen VII. It must have been thrown in only just before it was recovered.

3 " Ibique (at the confession) immolata pro eo dominica hostia efferentes (sic) eum inter apostolicas tumbas suo restituerunt sepulcro." lb. Cf Inf. et Def, c. 4, ap. P. L., t. 129, p. 1082.

4 Ubi supra. " Hoc (the salutation by the images,) namque a religio- sissimis Romanse urbis viris persepe audivi."

90 THEODORE II.

religious men of the city of Rome " that when the body was brought to St Peter's, it was " reverentially saluted " by certain of the images of the saints.

Coins, etc. Like his predecessor, he granted l a privilege to the See of Grado. The one silver coin of his which is known, and of which Cinagli gives an illustration, bears on its obverse, like the coins of his two predecessors, the name of the emperor Lambert. On the reverse we find " Scs. Petrus " and the monogram "Thedr."

Epitaph (?). As his epitaph we will cite the words of Frodoard. He speaks in such high terms of this Pope as to make it matter for regret that he did not reign longer. To account for the very short pontificate of many of the Popes of this period, who are not known to have died by a violent death, it has been suggested that the faction leaders, who then controlled the pontifical elections, of set purpose placed upon the throne men who were either infirm or even older than were most of their predecessors at the time of their election : —

" Quo (Romano) rapto breviore subit fastigia sorte Dilectus clero Theodorus, pacis amicus.

Bis denos Romana dies jura gubernans, Sobrius et castus, patria bonitate refertus,

Vixit pauperibus diffusus amator et altor. Hie populum docuit connectere vincula pacis.

Atque sacerdotes concordi ubi junxit honore, Dum propriis revocat disjectos sedibus, ipse

Complacitus rapitur, decreta sede locandus.' -'

According, then, to the canon of Rheims, Pope Theodore

was beloved of the clergy, a friend of peace, temperate,

chaste, affable, and a great lover of the poor. He was taken

to his throne in heaven whilst he was working to promote

peace and harmony both among clergy and people, and

was restoring to their rights those who on earth had been

robbed of them.

1 Again the bull of John XIX.

- Frodoard, De Chrisli triumph., xii. 6.

JOHN IX.

A.D. 898-900.

Sources. — A few letters of John, ap. P. Z., t. 131, and a few to him in the Councils, e.g. in Labbe, ix. p. 483 f. The other authorities as before.

Amid the historic gloom of this period the deeds of The deeds

r of John IX.

John IX. burst forth like the lightning flash that for an instant reveals to our view all things far and near which the impenetrable darkness of the storm had hidden from our sight. In John IX. we again see the papal authority reaching even to the ends of the earth.

Already have we depicted him giving his decisions to the East1 on the question of Photius, sending thither as his legates Bishop Nicholas and Cardinal John. Here in this connection we will merely add that his envoys " who came for the union of the Churches," were received by the emperor Leo VI., the Wise, with the greatest dis- tinction. Every attention was paid to them. Banquets were arranged in their honour, at which, in accordance with precedent, they occupied the places next to the

1 Cf. vol. iii. of this work, p. 394. 9i

92 JOHN IX.

emperor.1 Their mission, as we have seen, was eminently successful, and East and West were once again united in religious harmony.

We have, too, already set forth his settlement of the question of Argrim of Langres in Francia.2 We shall soon see him, in conjunction with the emperor Lambert, striving to bring the blessings of peace and order to Rome, to the States of the Church, and to all Italy ; and endeavouring to render surer the independence of Moravia by granting it a fresh hierarchy of its own.3 But after the lightning flash has passed the darkness seems thicker than ever. Despite all his efforts to ameliorate the evils of the age, John lived long enough to see the gloom of the times made denser by the deaths of the emperors Lambert and Arnulf; by the contests between Louis of Provence (the Blind) and Berenger for Italy and the imperial crown ; by the accession of Louis (the Child) in Germany ; by the steady increase of the anarchy in south Italy; and by the first irruption into Italy of the terrible Hungarians at the close of the year 899.

That John, the son of Rampoald, a native of Tivoli, and a Benedictine, was the successor of Theodore II. is certain ; but when he mounted the pontifical throne is uncertain. While JafTe makes his reign extend from April 898 to May 900, Duchesne gives him from January 898 to January 900. It is at any rate practically certain that while the

1 These interesting little items are made known to us by the De cerimoniis of the emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus. In the second book (c. 52) he has inserted the Cletorologium of Philotlieus, which was drawn up in the year 900. It is a new edition of the rules of etiquette to be observed at the state banquets. In n. 3 it is laid down that the legates from Rome, if bishops, take precedence " of our bishops"; and, if priests, of our priests, etc. ; and the author notes that, in the time of Leo VI., the Roman legates who came for the union of the Churches took precedence of everyone.

2 Cf. vol. iii. of this work, p. 384 n. 3 /£., p. 245.

JOHN IX. 93

early part of 898 saw his accession, the early part of 900 witnessed his demise. From the epitaph of Sergius III., which will be given in its proper place, and from the words of Frodoard, cited below,1 it appears that John's election was not a unanimous one. Sergius, who was destined to become Pope later, was elected about the same time. Whether Sergius was the representative of any party other than that of his personal friends is to the last degree doubtful. His epitaph would seem to state that his election on this occasion was effected simply by the power of his father {jure paternd). At any rate, when we find the author of the Invectiva, the strong opponent of Sergius, emphasising the fact that Formosus did not mount the papal throne as though it were his " by hereditary right " (p. 830, hcereditario jure), the meaning we have given to jure paterno is no doubt the correct one. We may be sure that in putting forward such a defence of Formosus our author was inferentially attacking Sergius.

Some contend — but whether on sure grounds is another matter — that his rival, John, was successful because he favoured, and was consequently supported by, the house of Spoleto. At any rate, his rehabilitating the memory of Formosus, and his condemning the action of Stephen (VI.) VII., prove that, if he was a friend of the house of Spoleto, he was not their servant, as Stephen seems to have been.

Sergius and his partisans, who were declared excom- municated in the Roman synod of 898, were driven from the city, and John IX. was duly acknowledged as the

1 " Joannes subit hinc, qui fulsit ordine nonus, Pellitur electus patria quo Sergius urbe,

Romulidumque gregum quidam traduntur abacti ( = abactores). Conciliis tamen is ternis docuisse refertur Dogma salutiferum, novitasque aboleta malorum, Et firmata fides doctrinis tradita Patrum."

De triumph., xii. 7. Cf. Auxil. ap. D., p. 61.

94 JOHN IX.

lawful successor of St. Peter.1 When Gregorovius- says of the new pontiff that " during his two years' reign he dis- played intelligence and moderation," he is only giving the verdict of history as it had already been voiced by Baronius and Muratori.3 Council of Both in John's epitaph and in the verses of Frodoard, ' the work of this Pope, to which special attention was called, was the holding of three synods. Of these the acts of two are known. Both were concerned with the rehabilitation of the memory of Formosus, and with taking remedial measures to improve the disorders of the times. The primary object of the first of these councils, that of Rome, was undoubtedly to emphasise the policy of Theodore II. with regard to Formosus, who had ordained John priest.4 After the acts of Theodore's synod had been read, that of Stephen(VL) VII. was condemned, its actswereordered to be burnt, and the violence exercised upon those who attended it was denounced. For while Peter, bishop of Albano, Sylvester of Porto, and other bishops acknowledged that they had been present at " that horrible synod " ; that the accusations brought against Formosus were false ; and that they had subscribed the acts of the synod against him ; they declared they had acted under compulsion ; begged for forgiveness ; and prayed that " for the future, bishops might not be compelled by violence to act against the canons." Re- ordinations were interdicted, and those who had been ordained by Formosus, but condemned by Stephen, were

1 Though Sergius had been consecrated bishop by Formosus, he was at this period apparently not acting as a bishop. At any rate, if the Sergius, condemned by the council of 898, was the same as the rival of John IX. and the successor of Leo V., he is described by the eighth canon which condemned him as "a priest." "Sergium etc. dudum presbyteros S.R.E juste et canonice damnatos."

2 Rome, iii. 231. 8 *' Uomo molto saggio e pio." AmiaL, viii. 222. 4 Invect., p. 836.

JOHN IX. 95

restored to their respective ranks among the clergy. While the translation of Formosus was, as we have already seen, approved because done " from necessity," it was decreed that, as translations from see to see were con- demned by the canons, the case of the late Pope was not to serve as a precedent. That " most wicked " custom of plundering the palaces of Popes or bishops on their death was to be put down both by Pope and emperor. On the ground that an increase of sin was the result of such inter- ference, secular judges were forbidden to take cognisance of carnal sins. Inquiry into adultery and other such crimes was to be made by the bishop according to the decisions of the canons.1 There were also issued at this council two decrees of political importance. By one (can. 6) the u unction of our spiritual son," the most excellent emperor Lambert, is acknowledged as valid ; 2 while the " barbaric, surreptitiously obtained " unction of Berenger is rejected.

It is the fashion nowadays both to reject the " Berenger" of the text and to replace it by " Arnulf." However, there seems no reason why the regal anointing of Berenger, the rival of Lambert in Italy, should not be so described, as it was only performed (March 888) by Anselm, archbishop of Milan. Besides, Lambert had nothing to fear from the paralysed Arnulf, but much from the indefatigable Berenger. The goodwill of John IX. towards Lambert, and his confidence in him, is further shown by the tenth canon, which the factious power of the Roman nobility at this period rendered necessary, and which was a voluntary return to Lothaire's constitution of 824. The canon ran thus : " Because the Holy Roman Church, over which by

1 Can. 12. " Habeantur episcopi .... liberam potestatem adul- teria et scelera inquirere, ulscisci et judicare, secundum quod canones censuerunt."

2 By some oversight the French ed. of Hefele (Cone, vi. 141) runs : *' Nous declarons nul le sacre de l'empereur Lambert."

96 JOHN IX.

God's will we preside, suffers on the death of the Pope the greatest indignities, which are brought about because the consecration of the new Pope takes place without notice being sent to the emperor, and because the am- bassadors sent by him, in accordance with the canons and custom, are not present to prevent deeds of violence and scandals from taking place at the consecration, we decide that, for the future, the Pope be elected by the bishops (cardinal) and clergy, with the approval (or in presence of — expetente) of the senate and people, and then consecrated in the presence of the imperial envoys." x

On the conclusion of this synod, John moved north, and, in presence of the emperor Lambert and of seventy- three bishops from all parts of Italy, held another important synod at Ravenna.2 The latest edition of the acts of this assembly is that of Boretius, which is the one cited here. On his way to Ravenna, the Pope was so horrified at the signs of the reign of brute force which he saw everywhere, " even in our own territories," that, as he told the emperor (cap. 5), when he implored him in the synod to punish the authors of such deeds of violence, " he would much rather

1 This is the decree that by mistake used to be assigned to Stephen (IV.) V. Cf. Lapotre, Jean VIII., p. 211 n. It concludes by forbidding any new-fangled oaths to be extorted from the new Pope. (The acts of this synod — ap. Labbe, ix. 502 — are, as already remarked, given best in Mansi, xviii. 222 f.) We can scarcely be here in presence of an "election capitulation," by which the College of Cardinals, before proceeding to a papal election, bound the one who was to be elected to favour their body. Such capitulations were frequent in the fifteenth century, can with certainty be traced to the election of Innocent VI. (1352), and may date back to that of Boniface VI 1 1, but not to the days of John IX. (Cf Pastor, Lives of the Popes, Eng. ed., i. 382 n.) The oaths in question would, no doubt, be oaths exacted in favour of some faction.

2 This synod is spoken of by all the partisans of Formosus, e.g. Invect., p. 836 ; Auxilius frequently, ap. D., pp. 69, 72, 95 ; Vulgarius, 118, ed. D.

JOHN ix. 97

die than see such things perpetrated in our day. If they are not righted," he continued, " both you and I shall have a strict account to give to the Supreme Judge." Decrees were issued by the synod to confirm those of the Roman council (cap. 4), and to enforce the payment of the tithe (cap. 1). Others set forth that the Roman Church was reduced to such straits that it had money neither for the poor nor for the support of its clergy and officials (cap. 10) ; that its property, both movable and immov- able, had been irrationally given away, presumably to fac- tion leaders (cap. 78) ; and that even those whom John had sent to cut timber for the restoration of the Lateran basilica had been violently dispersed (cap. 10).

The more important articles constituted a sort of con- cordat between the emperor and the Pope. In return for the renewed concession of the right of the imperial envoys to be present at the consecration of the Popes (c. 4), and of the right of any Roman to appeal to the emperor (c. 2), the agreements of former emperors to protect the rights, privileges, and possessions of the Roman Church were to be renewed; and, in particular, the decrees of Louis II. (850) against the outrageous doings " in the territories of Blessed Peter " of predatory bands of Romans, Lombards, and Franks had to be put in force again. At the conclu- sion of the synod, which gives us, by the mere presentment of its sober decrees, a more graphic picture of the miseries of Italy than could any highly coloured description, the Pope exhorted the bishops to let their conduct be a source of virtuous inspiration to others, and, on their return to their dioceses, to try by prayer and fasting to turn aside the anger of God.

And need there was of prayer, for things were yet to get Political

worse. The death of Lambert while hunting, a very short s^16'

time after the close of the synod of Ravenna (October 15), VOL. IV. 7

98 JOHN IX.

gave free scope to the ambition of Berenger. Up to this time he had, with varying fortune, maintained his inde- pendence in the north-east of Italy against Arnulf and the house of Spoleto alike. Now he made a bold stroke for Italy and the imperial crown. But, through the scheming of Adalbert II., marquis of Tuscany, Louis of Provence (the Blind) entered Italy in the following year to oppose his pretensions. Another foe, the swift Hungarian,1 invaded Italy the same year (August 899), and pressed hard on the unfortunate Berenger. While Frank and Hungarian were helping the Italians themselves to rend the north of Italy, the same awful assistance for a like purpose was still being furnished to them by Greek and Saracen in the south. The death of Arnulf (December) in this same ill-fated year was to teach Germany how fatal it was in an hour of crisis to be ruled by a " child." The Slavs In the midst of all this clash of arms John was quietly 899. ' working to give stability to a much harassed Christian people, the Slavs of Moravia. When mention was last 2 made of them, it was stated that by German intrigue the disciples of St. Methodius, their apostle, were expelled from Moravia not long after the saint's death, and that, crushed between the Germans and the Hungarians, the Moravians lost their ecclesiastical and civil liberty soon after the death of their hero Swatopluk (f894). However, during that short interval, his son Mo'fmir made a last effort to save his people. Reasonably concluding that for his country to be free from ecclesiastical dependence on one of its foes, viz. Germany, would help its civil freedom, he sent to Pope

1 The date, 899, of this event is vouched for not only by the fragment of the Chronicle of Nonantula, quoted by Muratori {Ann., viii. 234), but by a crowd of annals in the first volume of the 3f. G. SS. And so one of the codices of the Ann. Alamann. has * Ungri Italiam invaserunt, et Langobardos bello vicerunt."

- Cf. vol. iii. p. 245.

JOHN IX. 99

John IX. to request that Moravia might have a hierarchy of its own. Such details of this affair as have come down to us are to be found in two letters from Germany. One was from Hatto, archbishop of Mayence, the other from some half-dozen bishops, among whom were Theotmar, archbishop of Salzburg, and Richard of Passau. Both letters were written about the same time, viz. in the early part of 900; for both documents speak of the recent election of Louis the Child, who was proclaimed king in the beginning of 900. In response to the request of Moimir, John dispatched three bishops to look into the affair. In the Pope's name they consecrated a metro- politan and three bishops,1 without any reference to the bishop of Passau, who claimed jurisdiction over Moravia. As the letters just quoted give us no further informa- tion as to the Church in Moravia, and as we know that soon after this it was annihilated along with the State by the Hungarians, we might well say nothing further about them. However, as in them the same hectoring tone is to be found as is often to be met with in a German official of to-day, one of them may be analysed to illustrate the per- manence of national characteristics, if nothing else. As both letters are conceived in much the same terms, it is matterless which is selected. The letter of Hatto is chosen as being the shorter.

The archbishop began his letter by assuring the Pope The letter that no body of bishops were more devoted to the Roman the Pope. Church than were the bishops of Germany, and that they rejoiced that the glory of the head of all the Churches was so enhanced by the holiness and wisdom of John himself. The Pope is then informed of the death of the emperor

1 "Episcopi (de latere vestro) in nomine vestro, ut ipsi dixerunt, ordinaverunt .... unum archiepiscopum et tres suffraganeos." The letter of the bishops, ap. Labbe, ix. 499, or ap. P. L., t. 131.

IOO JOHN IX.

Arnulf and the election of Louis, because, though "very- little," he was of the royal stock. " We have no doubt that your prudence will understand how it was that this was done without your sanction."1 These very remarkable words seem to point to a right possessed by the Pope to have a voice in the regal election of one who, as the son of an emperor, might be supposed to have some claim to the imperial title. Hatto declared that the only reason of their action was that the presence of the barbarians (Magyars) prevented them from sending envoys to him. Now, however, that the roads are clear, "we beg you to confirm our common constitution by your word of power."2 The archbishop then informed John that the bishops of Bavaria had complained to him that the Moravians, " in rebellion against the Franks," were boasting that by virtue of a concession obtained from Rome they were no longer subject to foreign bishops, but had a metropolitan see of their own — a thing which, boldly asserted Hatto, ignoring the position held by St. Methodius, they had never had before. His fellow-bishops, he said, were also annoyed, because John had been told that it was through them that the pagans (the Hungarians) had been able to do such terrible damage. He had not, he continued, cared to give any answer to his episcopal brethren before consulting the Pope. He there- fore begged the Pope to remedy the causes of complaint which the Bavarian bishops (" true servants of God and good pastors") had; and assured him that, if the Moravians went on boasting of their metropolitan, there would be bloodshed. " As far as we may venture to presume, we would advise you by correction to bring them to humility

1 " Sed cur hoc (viz. the election of the parvissimus son of Arnulf) sine vestra jussione et permissione factum sit, vestram haud dubitamus latere prudentiam." Ap. Labbe, ib., p. 497.

2 "Rogamus, nostram communem constitutionem, vestras domina- tionis benedictione roborari." lb.

JOHN IX. IOI

before this should happen, so that they may at length understand to whose power they must be subject. We are aware that it is our duty to let you know if the Holy Roman Church should chance to make any mistake, so that your power may do what is right. And if your admonition shall not correct them, then, whether they like it or whether they do not, they shall bend their necks to the princes of the Franks " ! x The poor Moravians might well wish to be free from the jurisdiction of such belligerent bishops.

If, as is asserted by more modern authors, John was a Other acts. Benedictine, it is only natural to find it on record 2 that he confirmed the privileges of the great Benedictine monastery of Monte Cassino. And if John had cause to complain that much of the property of the Roman Church had been unjustly alienated, some of it at least was granted under proper conditions, and by John himself. This we know from a bull of Innocent III.3 to the Lords of Frosinone. In it he renews the grant of the " Castrum Frusinonis " with its territory as it had been conceded to them by his predecessors John IX. and Paschal II.

In the list of places at which Archbishop Sigeric stopped on his return from Rome to England, we find, named immediately after the Eternal City, certain regular post- towns on the Via Cassia. The first of these is " Bacane," i.e., " ad Baccanas " (near the modern Baccana), which is set down in the Itinerary of Antoninus as twenty-one miles from Rome. But before this, mention is made of a halting- place, " Johannis Villi." Where or what was "Johannis Villi"? Was it a palace or villa which had

1 " Quod si vestra admonitio illos non correxerit, velint, nolint, Fran- corum principibus colla submitted." lb.

2 Leo Ost., Chron. mon. Cas., i. c. 46, ap. R. I. SS., iv.

3 Ap. Theiner, Cod. Dip. Dom., i. 40.

102 JOHN IX.

been erected by John IX., and to which he had given his name, or was it a new city, like the Johannoplis of John VIII., which he had founded? Unfortunately we are only able to ask these questions. We cannot solve them, but must leave them to be answered by some learned archaeologist. Coins and The coins of John IX. differ from those of his pre-

epitaph. ■_«•■« /t i \ •

decessors by having the emperors name (Lambert), instead of that St. Peter, in conjunction with that of the Pope, on the obverse. " St. Peter " stands by itself on the reverse.

The twelfth century canon of St. Peter's, Peter Mallius, says that the tomb of John IX. was just in front of the basilica, near the gate of Guido, and that his epitaph x ran thus :—

" Ecclesiae specimen, clarissima gemma bonorum

Et mundi dominus, hie jacet eximius Johannes, meritis qui fulsit in ordine nonus,

Inter apostolicos quern vehit altitonans. Conciliis docuit ternis qui dogma salutis

Observare, Deo munera sacra ferens. Temporibus cujus novitas abolita mali est

Et firmata fides quam statuere patres. Qui moriturus eris, lector, die, Papa Joannes

Cum Sanctis capiat regna beata Dei."

The epitaph tells us where lies John IX., the glory of the good and the lord of the world ; it tells us of the saving doctrines he taught in three synods ; and calls on its reader, who will himself one day die, to pray God that Pope John may reign with Him and His saints.

1 L. />., ii. 232.

BENEDICT IV.

A.D. 900-903.

Sources. — No fresh source except a few letters, ap. P. L. t. 131, etc.

To John IX., who for the good as well of the Church as of Benedict the State reigned all too short a time, succeeded Benedict, °pe' a Roman, and the son of Mammalus. He too had been ordained 1 priest by Formosus, and naturally revered his memory. A character of the highest order is given by Frodoard 2 to this Pope, whom he designates as Great. He sets him down as worthy of the name he bore, generous and kind, as distinguished by birth and virtue, as one who preferred the common weal to his own advantage, and as the bountiful patron of all in need. With regard to his acces- sion and death, we have the chronological difficulties usual at this period. It is certain that he died in the summer of 903, and reigned somewhat over three years. According to Jaffe, he became Pope in May 900, and died about August 903 ; while, according to Duchesne, his pontificate lasted from January or February 900 to the end of July 903.

1 Aux., In. def. Steph., cc. 4, 6, ap. D., p. 100 f.

2 As Benedict's epitaph will be quoted later, there is no need to cite the words of Frodoard, which are very like it.

103

104 BENEDICT IV.

Coronation The most important event in Benedict's reign was the

of Louis of

Provence, coronation at Rome of Louis the Blind. This grandson, through his mother, of the emperor Louis II., and son of Boso, the once favoured friend of Pope John VIII., had been summoned into Italy by certain of the nobles, principally by Adalbert II., marquis of Tuscany, to oppose the pretensions of Berenger, just as, on the death of Guido, some of them had elected Lambert.1 As very little is really known of the politics of this period, it cannot be stated whether Louis was summoned into Italy because many were anxious to have as their king a descendant of the respected Louis II., or because, according to a plan on which they had acted before, the nobles preferred to have two masters, so that they could play one off against the other, and meanwhile do as they listed. However, quite in the style of other kings from France, both before and after his time, Louis commenced his struggle against Berenger with a campaign more brilliant than thorough. The troops of Berenger were scattered, and Louis was crowned emperor by Benedict in February 901. A diploma of the new emperor shows him and Benedict seated together in judg- ment,2 with the bishops of Italy and the nobles of his kingdom, in the great hall of the palace near St. Peter's, in

1 "Fautores Widonis, veriti ne ab eis inlatam Berengarius ulcis- ceretur injuriam, et quia semper Italienses geminis uti dominis volunt, quatinus alterum alterius terrore coherceant .... Lambertum .... regem constituunt." Liutprand, Antapod., i. 37.

2 Not "feasted" by the Pope. Miley, Papal States, li. 268. The diploma is dated "Anno Imperii D. Ludovici primo, mense Februarii, indictione quarta," and begins " Dum D. Ludovicus, serenissimus Imp. Aug. a regale dignitate Romam ad summum imperialis culminis apicem per ss. et bb. summi Pont, et univ. Pap?e D. Benedicti dexteram advenisset ; atque cum ss. . . . episcopis, adqueRegni sui ducibus, etc. .... in palacio .... in Laubia magiore .... cum eodem Pont, in judicio resedisset," etc. Ap. Muratori, Ann., 901. Cf. Mansi, Cone., xviii. 239. Cf. another diploma of Louis in which the Pope is called "sanctissimum et coangelicum," ap. Muratori, Antiq. Ital, ii. 49 ff.

BENEDICT IV. 105

the month of February, of the fourth indiction — i.e., 901. After an earnest discussion " on the stability of Holy Church, and on the condition of the State," judicial pro- ceedings were commenced. Among other matters then decided, certain Church property which had been taken from him was restored to Peter, bishop of Lucca. This placitum is further interesting because, among the "judges of the city," who are recorded as being present at it, are to be read such names as Theophylactus and Crescentius. Not for the last time by a great deal, in the history of the Popes of this age, do we here encounter the " house of Theophylactus " or the family of the Crescentii.

Altogether the relations between Berenger and Louis, Misfor- their alternate triumphs and defeats, are not easy to follow. Louis. However, as they do not directly concern our work, it may suffice to quote the summary of Duchesne regarding them : 1 " In 902 Berenger gained the upper hand, and compelled the Provencal emperor to swear never again to enter Italy, and to recross the Alps. However, on the summons of such of the Italian nobles as were discontented with the rule of Berenger, Louis broke his oath (905), entered Italy, and even succeeded in taking Verona from his rival. But, after he had been delivered into his enemy's hands by treachery, Berenger put out his eyes and again sent him from Italy, this time for ever."

Among the few acts of Benedict IV. of which the ravages Stephen, of time have left us any record, mention has already been Naples. made of his support of Argrim of Langres.2 Another of

1 Les premiers temps de Vetat pont., p. 161.

2 Vol. iii. p. 384 n. of this work. The bull in which Benedict restored his rights to Argrim (ap. P. /,., t. 131) is interesting as testi- fying that papal documents were as usual still preserved in the archives of the Church (in scrinio S. R. E. ) ; that the Pope held a synod in the Lateran palace ; and that in his opinion Pope Formosus was " most saintly."

106 BENEDICT IV.

his acts in connection with another bishop brought about a similar controversy in Naples to the one raised in Rome over the translation of Formosus. The history of Stephen, the bishop in question, was not known till the discoveries of Dummler brought to light the apology for him by Auxilius, and the letter of two clerics concerning him. Following the account given us by Auxilius, we are enabled to see that the disorders in and about Rome were only a type of similar ones at other centres in Italy. When first introduced to our notice, Stephen is bishop of Sorrento, and is described as a man of learning (he could both speak and write Greek and Latin) and of eminent chastity, a man devoted to his prayers and the Mass, and of the tenderest compassion. These qualities did not save him from being seized, and even scourged,1 by some of his fellow -citizens, and then driven into exile. Prevented from appealing in person to the Apostolic See, he managed to do so by letter. Means of subsistence he indeed obtained at once from Rome ; but as the people of Sorrento set at naught 2 the interdict of the Pope, he could not recover his see. Later on, driven from one place to another by the machinations of his enemies and the ravages of the Saracens, he and the clerics who remained faithful to him were often reduced to the point of starvation, and had to beg a precarious livelihood from door to door.8 It was at this juncture that the great Pope John VIII., "unable to bear the ravages of the Saracens any longer," came to Capua to work for their extermination. " Like a good pastor," when he heard of the distress of Stephen, he bade

1 "Ab impiis concivibus apprehensus est et flagellatus." Aux., ap. Dummler, p. 96.

2 lb. Cf. the letter, *<£., p. 105 : u Ilia plebs austeris etiam ipsam apos- tolicam auctoritatem contempsit et excommunicationem."

8 " Ita ut clerici ejus ostiatim elemosynas peterent, quibus eum sustentare possent." Aux., p. 97.

BENEDICT IV. 107

him come with him to Rome, assuring him that he would give him the Church of St Paul, so that he and his clerics might have the necessaries of life. This would not have suited the enemies of Stephen, and so, through the intercession of the notorious Athanasius II., bishop of Naples, they managed to secure John's consent that Stephen should reside at Naples, provided he were duly supported by its bishop. Needless to say, he was as much persecuted as ever. However, as Athanasius made use of his episcopal services, he merited the blessings and the love of the whole people. On the death of the tyrant Athanasius, the people rose, and had in mind to put his whole household to the sword. To save bloodshed, the clergy and nobility implored Stephen to consent to enter the palace of Athanasius as his successor. And then, "by the authority of Pope Benedict IV., and the written consent of the clergy of the Holy Roman Church, and by two bishops, Romanus and Cosmates, sent from Rome for the purpose, he was enthroned in the episcopal chair of Naples, not to satisfy vainglory, or for the gratification of the sensual appetite, or for pomp, but, as we have said, to save the episcopal palace and its dependants, for the benefit of the poor, and to bring about peace between Capua and Naples. All these things he did not fail to do to the end of his life."1 When Pope Sergius later thought fit to assail the ordinations of Pope Formosus, there were not wanting those who attacked the position of Stephen because he had been enthroned by order of Pope Benedict, who had himself been ordained by Formosus. Auxilius took up the defence of both Formosus and Stephen.

Another very estimable prelate and, as we have seen, a Assassina-

frequent correspondent of the Popes, was Fulk of Rheims. Ftdk

. . Rheims.

1 Aux., p. 99.

108 BENEDICT IV.

His assassination (June iy, 900) is another evidence of the violence of the times. Because he refused to surrender to Baldwin II., count of Flanders, certain properties belong- ing to that nobleman, which King Charles III. (the Simple) had with good reason confiscated and handed over to Fulk, the archbishop was murdered by an emissary of Baldwin. The assassin was at once excommunicated by the Pope, who ordered " the bishops of all the provinces " of Charles's kingdom to repeat the condemnation. With an irony of fate not unusual here below, while his unfor- tunate agent died, still under the excommunication, of a most loathsome disease, declaring that a feeling of fidelity to his lord had been the cause of what he had done, Baldwin himself afterwards received back again the very abbey which had been the cause of the trouble, as a gift from the king.1 Maiacenus To pass over two of his privileges to monasteries, there

of Anusia. . , , ,

remains to be noticed still one other interesting document issued by Benedict. It deserves mention because it shows the Pope the refuge of distressed bishops in the East as well as in the West, and gives evidence of the advance of the Saracenic power in the Eastern Empire, then ruled by Leo VI., so called, the Philosopher, or the Wise (886-912). For "though," says Finlay,2 "the strength of the empire was not seriously affected by the losses sustained" under Leo the Wise, not a few "disgraceful defeats " were sustained at the hands of the Saracens, and "the people often suffered the greatest misery." Thus, while Saracen fleets sacked and destroyed Demetrias, in Thessaly (902), and Thessalonica, the second city of the

1 " Baldwinus autem post hasc abbatiam optinuit regia donatione." Folcwin, Gesta abbatum, c. 98, ap. M. G. SS., xiii. Cf. Frodoard, Hist. Rem., iv. 10. In Richerius, Hist., i., c. 18, a detailed description is given of the murderer's death.

2 The Byzantine Empire (1st ed.), p. 314.

BENEDICT IV. IO9

empire (904), their armies took Hysela, in Carsiana (887), and Amasia, the metropolis of Pontus. The bishop of the last-named city, Malacenus,1 thus deprived of his see, and full of anxiety to ransom those of his people who had been taken captive, but knowing it would be useless to go for sympathy to the ease-loving and pedantic Leo, betook himself to Benedict. By him he was received with kind- ness, and furnished with an encyclical letter addressed to all bishops, abbots, counts, and judges, and to all orthodox professors of the Christian faith, who were exhorted to show Malacenus the greatest consideration, and to see him safe from one city to another.2 As Mr. Beazley3 well observes : " The rich and powerful Christendom of the West is again called to aid the elder sister of the East — on evil times now fallen, and evil tongues. And yet one thinks of Western Christendom, at this time, as in its darkest ages."

Of the coins of Benedict, which usually have on them Coins, the name of the emperor Louis as well as that of the Pope, there is one which bears on its reverse the name of St. Paul instead of that of the emperor Louis. This must have been struck " during the vacancy of the empire," i.e., before February 90 I.4

The tomb of Benedict, which was placed not far from Epitaph.

that of his predecessor, had the following epitaph 5 : —

" Membra Benedict! hie quarti sacrata quiescunt Pontiricis magni, prassulis eximii, Qui merito dignus, Benedictus nomine dictus,

Cum fuerit largus omnibus atque bonus. Hie generis decus ac pietatis splendor opimus Ornat opus cunctum, jussa Dei meditans.

1 His name ought to be added to the list of the bishops of Amasia, in Gams, Series Epft., p. 442.

2 Ap. P. L., t. 131, p. 43 5 Jaffe, 3530 (27 11).

3 The Dawn of Modern Geography, ii. 121.

4 Promis, p. 78. 5 L. P., ii. 233.

110 BENEDICT IV.

Praetulit hie generale bonum lucro spetiali,

Mercatus celum cuncta sua tribuit. Despectas viduas necnon inopesque pupillos

Ut natos proprios assidue refovens. Inspector tumuli compuncto dicito corde :

Cum Christo regnes, O Benedicte, Deo."

The substance of this epitaph has already been given in the words of Frodoard : " Do you," it concludes," who gaze upon his tomb, say with a heart full of compassion : May you reign with Christ, O Benedict."

Photo, Alinari.

A section of the frescoes of S. I'icr in ( irado, showing the portrait of Christopher. Seep. n6ff.

LEO V.

A.D. 903. (CHRISTOPHER — ANTIPOPE, 903-904.)

If there has been obscurity concerning the reigns of Leo's Leo

elected*

immediate predecessors, almost Egyptian darkness en- velops Leo and Christopher. To begin with what certain information we possess in regard to them, the Catalogues state that Benedict's successor was Leo, a priest from with- out (forensis), and that he was a native of Ardea, " from a place called Priapi." That forensis implies that Leo was not a cardinal-priest of Rome, is curiously confirmed by the twelfth (?) century legend of the Breton saint Tugdual (Tual), the patron of Tregnier. According to the legend, Tugdual went to Rome on a pilgrimage and was made Pope, changing his name to Leo Britigena,1 as is narrated in the Roman Catalogue. When exactly he was elected, or how long he filled the chair of Peter, is, as usual, uncer- tain. According to the Catalogues and Frodoard,2 who

1 "Plebs .... Tutgnalum .... intronizat et mutato nomine ipsum Leonem Britigenam nominat, ut Romanus catalogus narrat." A. de la Borderie, Les trots vies anciennes de S. Tudual, p. ly, quoted by Duchesne, L. P., ii. 234.

2 " Post quern (Benedictum) celsa subit Leo jura notamine quintus Emigrat ante suum quam luna bis impleat orbem."

De triumph., xii. 7.

112 LEO V.

only has the length of their pontificates to record about Leo and Christopher, Leo was bishop of Rome for less than two months — apparently1 in the beginning of the second half of the year 903. Auxilius, who makes him hold " the rudder of the holy Roman Church " for thirty days only, says of him that " he was a man of God and of praiseworthy life and holiness."

Bull of Though Pope for so short a time, he reigned long

enough to grant the canons of Bologna a favour which would no doubt help to keep his memory green at least among them. By a special bull {epistola tuitionis) he exempted them from the payment of taxes.2

Deposed. The next piece of certain information that we have about Leo is that he was seized by Christopher, cardinal- priest of the title of St. Damasus, and cast into prison.3 "Soon after the same Christopher made himself4 Pope." Though Christopher, who is set down as a Roman and the son of one Leo, held the See of Rome long enough5 to coin money, bearing the name of the emperor Louis as well as his own, and to confirm the privileges of the famous

1 According to Duchesne, from the end of July to September ; to Jaffe, from about August to September.

1 Jaffc, Supplem., ii. p. 746.

8 "A quodam Christophoro presbitero suo apprehensus est et caceralibus ergastulis mancipatus." Aux., ap. D., 60. When such an eminent authority as Rohrbacher {Hist, de rtglise, vol. xii. p. 497) denies that the imprisonment of Leo by Christopher is mentioned by any contemporary writer, it must be remembered that Diimmlcrs discoveries were not known to him.

4 Aux., id. " Mox autem idem Christophorus se papam instituit." Elsewhere (p. 95), " Post hunc (Leonem) Christophorus invasor."

6 Somewhat over half a year— so say the catalogue which serves as the L. P. and Frodoard :

u Christophorus mox sortitus moderamina sedis Dimidio ulteriusque parum, dispensat in anno.

Along with his own monogram, his coins bear the words " Lodov- vicvs Imp."

LEO V. 113

monastery of Corbey in the diocese of Amiens, he is with good reason regarded as an antipope. If anything can constitute an antipope, surely to seize and imprison the reigning pontiff, and by force to seat oneself in Peter's chair, is enough. But, of course, his title, like that of any other usurper, may have become legitimatized by general recognition. If with the little evidence at our disposal it is safe to make conjectures, it may well be doubted whether he was ever recognised as lawful Pope at Rome. We have the evidence1 of Auxilius that Christopher was dethroned by the joint exertions of Sergius, who at the time of the deposition of Leo was in exile "amongst the Franks" and the Romans. Moreover, Christopher had been seized and imprisoned before Sergius entered the city. And it must be remembered that this is the information given us by one who was anything but well disposed towards Sergius ; for, as we shall see presently, that pontiff shared the views of Stephen (VI.) VII., and, as far at least as his ordinations were concerned, showed himself even more hostile to Formosus than Stephen had been. When, then, the time necessary to form and hatch plots against those in power — especially when help has to be sought from a distance — be taken into consideration, and when it is remembered that Christopher only held the See

1 This is the passage : " Deinde (viz. on the usurpation of Christopher) Sergius quidam, qui apud Francos plurimis jam temporibus fuerit commoratus, valido Francorum auxilio, et quorumdam Ro?nanorum machinationibus praefatum comprehendi ac recludi fecit Christophorum, nee multo post latenter Romam ingrediens eisdem opitulantibus Francis apostolatus fastigium conscendit." Ap. D., p. 60. It must not be thought that there is question of the Franks of Gaul. The Franks referred to are those of Italy, the descendants of those placed in power by Charlemagne. If reliance could be placed on Liutprand (Ant., i. 30), it was into Tuscany that Sergius had retired, and it was by the help of its powerful marquis, Adalbert II., that he expelled Christopher.

VOL. IV. 8

114 L£0 v-

of Peter for a little over six months,1 it can scarcely be maintained that he acquired a lawful title by prescription. And hence he seems to have been regarded as an antipope by many of the medieval papal biographers. Almaricus Augerius2 (fourteenth century) frequently contrasts the intruder Christopher with the canonically elected Sergius. And the sixteenth century anonymous author of certain papal biographies first fully printed by Duchesne, when treating of the council of Constance, makes an historical summary of the schisms in the See of Rome which preceded the Great Schism, and reckons as the thirteenth that between Leo V. and the antipope Christopher. 3 On the other hand, the tradition of Rome would seem to put him into the list of true successors of St. Peter. All the catalogues set him down as the successor of Leo V., though it must be noted that some of them reckon as Popes all who have claimed to be such. The bust of Christopher figures among the mosaic portraits of the Popes in St. Paul's outside-the-walls, and some of his not too remote successors would appear to have tacitly recog- nised him as a legitimate Pope.4 The fate of While, then, we justly regard Christopher as an anti- Christo pope, and exclude him from our list of Popes, it is still natural to ask what was his fate, and what became of Leo V. whom he imprisoned. According to some, the

1 Most of the catalogues give him six or seven months. Many of these catalogues are given in Origines de PSglise romaine by "the members of the community of Solesmes." Vol. i., Paris, 1836.

2 See his Lives of Leo, Christopher, and Sergius, ap. A\ /. 6"5., iii., pt. ii. p. 320, 1. " Christophorus per invasionem et intrusionem sedem ap. occupavit." u Sergius post Christ, intrusum fuit canonice electus," etc.

3 "Tertium decimum (scisma) habuit Leo quintus, cujus antipapa fuit Christoforus, sedatus (sic) fuit armorum potentia perregem Francie ante annum." Ap. Duchesne, L. P., ii. 543.

4 E.g. St. Leo IX. Cf. Jaffe, 3532 and 4212.

LEO V. 115

true answer to these questions is to be found in a highly declamatory passage of Eugenius Vulgarius.1 There it is stated that " at length through pity " Sergius had them both put to death. But of this "pity" which Leo and Christopher could well have done without, Frodoard knows nothing, nor do the authors more or less strictly contemporary of the various catalogues. Even Auxilius, who would have been naturally anxious to make Sergius as black as possible, says nothing of all this ; though he does say more than once (pp. 78, 87) that Sergius was raised to the papal throne " by canonical authority, though two other apostolici (popes) were still alive." It is seemingly opposed to the authority of the catalogue, which ranks as a continuation of the Book of the Popes ; for it is there said that, when Christopher was driven from his usurped see, " he was made a monk." 2 He seems to have died a good death ; for of him Peter Mallius wrote : " His body rests in the Church of Blessed Peter, and his tomb has the epitaph : ' Here repose the pious members of Christopher.' " 3

1 " Quod nuper de Leone et Christ, actum totus mundus contremuit ; quando simul tres luctabantur apostolici, quorum unus {i.e. Sergius) qui fortior reliquos duro domans ergastulo vitam eorum cruda macera- tione decoxit ac tandem miseratus diro martyrio finiri compulit et ab imis medullis dolentes animas extorqueri fecit, quatenus securus singu- laritatis victor suorum hostium in apostolicali cathedra sola majestas adoraretur. O novum et inauditum : deus insequitur deum," etc. De causa Form., c. 13, ap. D., p. 135.

2 Another eleventh century catalogue has : " Hie ejectus est de Papatu, et factus est monachus." Ap. Les origines, etc., i. p. lvii. It is indeed quite possible that, as we have already noted with regard to Stephen VII., he may have been clothed with the tunic of a monk as a sign of degradation from his office before he was put to death.

3 " Hie pia Chriscofori quiescunt membra sepulti." Ap. Duchesne, L. P., ii. 235. It is, of course, not denied that Christopher was recognised by many at the time as a successor of St. Peter {e.g. Auxilius, ap. D., pp. 63, 95). Ignorance, or want of consideration of the circum- stances of his election, etc., would suffice to account for that.

Il6 LEO V.

It must be further borne in mind that both Auxilius and Vulgarius wrote at a distance from Rome, at Naples apparently ; so that, considering the rapid succession of Popes (from Boniface VI. to Sergius III. we have eight Popes in eight years) and the heated state of party feeling, it would in any case have been difficult for a writer not living in Rome to have discovered the truth. But, if there is question of a careless inquirer, it will be readily under- stood that in such circumstances his statements will have to be received with great caution. Now, such a writer was Vulgarius. At the very outset of his pamphlet on Formosus, he dates it in the seventeenth year of Charles IV. (the Simple), or in 910. He then proceeds to assign the Ravennese council of 898 to last year, and next to describe the events of 904 as recent.1 Besides, apart from the fact that he was interested in making Sergius appear as odious as possible, he fails, from his inflated style, to merit our confidence as an historian ; and, from his first assailing and then flattering Sergius, he is equally unsuccessful in winning our respect as a man.

Despite Vulgarius, then, it may well be held that Leo V. died in prison while the antipope Christopher occupied the papal throne, or, more probably, during the pontificate of Sergius III.,2 and that the usurper himself died repentant in a monastery. However, with such historical data before him as is at present available, the reader can form a judg- ment for himself as to the guilt or innocence of Sergius III. in the matter of the death of Leo V. and Christopher, and as to whether the latter should be considered an antipope or not. s. Pier in Before we lose sight of the shadowy form of Christopher, the recounting of an effort on the part of the writer of these pages to throw some further light upon it may not 1 Cf. pp. 1 18, 135. 3 Cf. supra, p. 115.

LEO V. 117

be uninteresting to the reader. Reading Carmichael's delightful In Tuscany, he came across this passage : " A few miles out of Pisa is the old basilica of San Pier in Grado, on the spot where tradition makes St. Peter land when coming from Antioch to Italy. Pope Clement is said to have built a church there. The present church is believed to have been erected before the end of the tenth century. Portraits of the Popes from St. Peter to John XIV. (■I-985) run round the walls of the nave above the arches." Were these beliefs about the church correct, and were the portrait of Christopher to be found among them, the conclusion that he was recognised as Pope in his own age in northern Italy could scarcely be avoided. In the hope of resolving some at least of these doubts, the present writer betook himself to Pisa, and on a beautiful afternoon in the month of April 1904 found himself leaving that unique city by the Porta del Mare, and wandering along the left bank of the peaceful Arno, ever and anon gazing back at the city with its shapely cathedral and baptistery and its curious leaning tower with their beautiful background of picturesque mountains. An hour's walk brought him to the venerable basilica, which, because of the traditions spoken of above, local pride considers as the first church " del mondo." Its age, and its marble pillars taken from some heathen temple, bound round with iron bands to keep them together, impress the beholder at once. Both the east and the west end terminate in an apse, and the walls are covered with frescoes. By the windows above the arches of the nave are the figures of angels, beneath which are depicted the doings of SS. Peter and Paul, and below these again some ninety-six portraits of Popes. They begin with St. Peter and his immediate successors, and then, after a break, go on with the portraits of later Popes, as the inscriptions beneath them prove — unless, indeed, they were

1 18 LEO V.

tampered with when the church was restored in 1884, or later when an artist retouched the colours of the portraits. This, however, is not likely; and the present writer had no great difficulty in making out the names below the portraits from Pope Christopher to John XV. He could not decipher the names below the last two portraits.

The question seemed now settled. Christopher was acknowledged as a true Pope by his contemporaries in north Italy. But no ! It appears from the latest re- searches that the church does not date further back than the twelfth century, and it is now generally agreed that its frescoes are the work of thirteenth century artists. The "scenes from the lives of the apostles were copied literally from frescoes in the atrium of St. Peter's. The portraits of the Popes were taken from those in the same church, or at the Lateran or at Paul's." *

1 Hutton writes {Florence and Northern Tuscany, p. 130), "The present church seems to be a building of the twelfth century." The frescoes are the work of Giunta Pisano or of his school. Cf T. Supino, Arte Pisano (Firenze, 1004), p. 257, who says that the portraits of the Popes date from the thirteenth century only, therein agreeing with Crowe and Cavalcaselle {History of Painting in Italy, i. 146 ff.), and Frothingham {The Monuments of Christian Rome, p. 381).

SERGIUS III

A.D. 904-911.

Sources. — Besides those already noted, there are some half-dozen letters ap. P. Z., t. 131, etc. His relations with the Greek Church may be gathered from two letters of St. Nicholas I., the Mystic, patriarch of Constantinople (895-925), — one to Anastasius III., and the other to John X. (ap. Labbe, Cone, ix. 1264 f.). Cf. also the Continuators of Theopha?ies, vi. 23, 4, ed. Bonn, p. 370. Later Greek authors such as Symeon Magister (c. 18, 19) simply copy the Continuators.

Ordained subdeacon by Marinus (882-884), and deacon Early by Stephen (V.) VI., Sergius, a Roman, the son of Benedict, was consecrated bishop of Caere by Formosus.1 He was apparently one of those deacons who had been consecrated bishops from some motives of jealousy, says Auxilius,2 and

1 Auxil., p. 95 ; Invert., p. 832 ; L. P. There does not seem to be any foundation for attaching Sergius to the family of the counts of Tusculum. No counts of 'Tusculum are known before the very close of the tenth century.

2 "Nonnulli levitarum cujusdam emulationis causa per vim facti sunt epp., postmodum .... episcopate officium peregerunt, deinde procedente tempore apostolici culminis ambitione succensi, episcopales infulas reliquerunt et in leviticum .... reversisuntordinem. . . . Hoc cur memorare curavimus ? nisi quia Sergius, cujus pestiferam emu-

119

120 SERGIUS III.

against their wishes, but who had afterwards ceased to act as bishops. Ambitious of the Papacy, they would be deacons again. According to the same authority, whose interest, it must not be forgotten, was to depreciate Sergius, inas- much as he had proclaimed the ordinations of Formosus null, Sergius declared himself that he had been consecrated against his will. And it is certain that he did not act as bishop of Caere for more than three years, i.e., most likely not after the death of his consecrator. Bishops returning to the rank of deacons to become Popes proves clearly enough that the ambition of men can scarcely be restrained by regulations.

Of the exact circumstances of his election at the time of the death of Theodore (898), of which we have already spoken, we have no information. He was doubtless elected by the party unfavourable to Formosus. At any rate it is certain that his party was not then " the larger and saner," and that he spent seven years * in exile " among the Franks." Here we may follow Liutprand, though his utterly confused statements about Sergius cannot generally be accepted, and say that he betook himself to the court of Adalbert II. of Tuscany. During his exile "among the Franks" Sergius made not the least attempt to act as an antipope. We may then emphasise the fact that, because he was chosen by a party to be Pope during a very factious period, it does not follow in the least that he was stained with any unholy ambition. He made no effort to be again chosen Pope till the violent usurpation of Christopher. And even then, if we ought to follow the

lationem in exordio tetigimus, licet per vim, ut ipse fatetur, tamen episcopus fuit .... tribusque annis .... episcopatum amminis- trasse/<?r///r." Auxil., p. 85.

1 "Sergius .... apud Francos, plurimis jam temporibus com- moratus." J6.t p. 60. "Exul .... septem volventibus annis," says his epitaph.

SERGIUS III. 121

authority of Frodoard,1 John the Deacon, and his epitaph, he waited till he was invited by the people, who could not tolerate the conduct of Christopher.

Sergius accepted the invitation of his friends, but took Second

election

care not to come to Rome helpless. He advanced with a 904. force of Adalbert's men at his back. This gave occasion to Auxilius and Liutprand 2 to say that he obtained the Papacy " by the aid of the Franks." However, the usurper Christopher was in prison before Sergius entered Rome, and the latter became Pope, January 29, 904.

During the seven years of his pontificate he displayed no little energy. Unfortunately, however, he was too much of a party-man to try to extinguish the fires of faction. He at once showed himself attached to the memory of Stephen VII., and a bitter opponent of Formosus and his friends. In the epitaph which he wrote for the former, he expresses his approval of Stephen's action against "the haughty intruder Formosus." In his own epitaph his rival John IX. is described as a "wolf"; and

1 Here is given all that Frodoard says of Sergius. As usual, it is very like the latter's epitaph, which will be quoted later.

" Sergius inde redit, dudum qui lectus ad arcem

Culminis, exilio tulerat rapiente repulsam ;

Quo profugus latuit septem volventibus annis.

Hinc poftuli remeans precibus, sacratur honore

Pridem adsignato, quo nomine tertius exit

Antistes. Petri eximia quo sede recepto

Praesule, gaudet ovans annis septem amplius orbis.

Ipse favens cleri censura in culmine rapto

Falce ferit pervasores."— De triumph., xii. 7. John the Deacon {De eccl. Later., 8, ap. P. L., t. 194), who wrote about the middle of the twelfth century, but who, in connection with the work of Sergius on the Lateran basilica, has preserved many useful particulars concerning that pontiff, says : " Revocatus est domnus Sergius presbiter et electus de exilio et consecratus." Muratori and others, who speak of John as a contemporary of Sergius, have mistaken some words of the Pope for those of the author.

2 Aux., p. 60 ; Lint, Ant., i. 30.

122 SERGIUS III.

the bishop of Uzes is blamed 1 for designating the intruder Formosus as a bishop {sacerdos). toman Unfortunately, too, he did not confine himself to words.

ynod, 904.

In a synod he procured the assent of the Roman clergy to the rejection of the orders conferred by Formosus, and, as a consequence, to the rejection of those given by such as had themselves been ordained by Formosus. This consent was, according to Auxilius, wrung from the clergy by threats of exile to Naples and other evils, and by violence2 and bribery. Many, therefore, submitted to reordination.3 'aper The ecclesiastical world of Italy was at once thrown

'arfare.

into a ferment. Such as had been ordained by Formosus, and were at a safe distance from Rome, did not fail to let their indignant cries be heard. Pens were set going, some to make inquiries, and some in defence of the work of Formosus. The question of the validity of ordinations performed by bishops illegally holding their sees was not thoroughly understood at this period; and the opponents of Formosus, or, what is much the same, Sergius's defenders, of whom unfortunately no writings are known, did not fail to put forward arguments against such ordinations. Hence Leo, bishop of Nola, endeavoured to collect the opinions of learned men on the subject. Among others he con- sulted Auxilius.4 Though, as he expressed himself, " he was sitting in Peter's barque," Auxilius declared that he felt the tempest. He had been summoned to the synod

1 Jaffe, 3534 (2714). "His nostris apicibus agnosce nominatum Formosum esse damnatum," ep. 2, ap. P. L.} t. 131.

2 P. 60. Cf. p. 78. " Consentanea facta synodo, qua? magis conven- ticulum quam synodus appellari potest." Vulgarius states the action of Sergius in his usual inflated and utterly unsatisfactory style. He says (p. 117) that word was brought from Rome " qualiter iterum domnus papa redivive in Formosianos feriret ac crudum resecationis mucronem in eos protenderet."

3 Aux., p. 78.

4 See the letter of Aux. to Leo, ap. P. L., t. 129, p. 1075.

SERGIUS III. 123

by Sergius, but had declined to go. He contended that no one was bound to obey unjust commands ; and, taking no notice of the excommunication pronounced against him by the Pope, continued to say Mass. To justify his contumacy, he went the length of distinguishing between the respect due to a see and to its occupant. " Due honour," he wrote, " must be paid to the different sees. But if those who occupy them deviate from the right path, they are not to be followed, i.e., if, as has often happened in the case of the sees of Constantinople and Alexandria, they act against the Catholic faith, no heed must be paid to them."1 He would await, he said at the conclusion of one of his tracts, the just judgment of a general council,2 which, it is more than hinted, is superior to the Pope.3

Whilst reading the words of Auxilius, we seem to be in the midst of the controversies of the Great Schism. As Saltet, whom we have here been following, very pertinently observes,4 it is most dangerous for authorities to drive their subjects to distinguishing between just and unjust commands. They will soon make other distinctions which are much less innocuous.

In compliance with the request of Leo, Auxilius issued one pamphlet after another showing that consecrations performed by a bishop, whether lawfully occupying his see or not, were as valid as baptisms performed by Catholic or heretic.

Vulgarius too entered into the fray in a less scientific but correspondingly more fierce manner. He would have the more important concerns, the causes majores,

1 "Aliud sunt pontificates sedes, aliud prsesidentes. Proinde honor et dignitas uniuscujusque sedes venerabiliter observanda sunt. Prsesi- dentes autem si deviaverint, per devia sequendi non sunt," etc. ; Inf. et Def, c. 18. Cf. c. 31, and De ordinate c. 35.

2 De ordinate c. 40. 3 Inf. et £>ef, c. 5. 4 Les rdordinations, p. 158.

124 SERGIUS III.

settled by the common consent of all the bishops, and not "by any pomp of domination"; and he called on the primates to check the pride of the Romans1 {Romanicos fastus). But Vulgarius was very far from always writing in this strain. Both in prose and in verse, some of which was of a highly artificial character,2 Sergius, " whose fair face," he declared, he would venerate as long as " the bright stars ran their course," was proclaimed by Vulgarius as " the glory of the world, the incomparable, the harbinger of all good," etc.3 This would be after he had been

1 Ap. Dum., p. 138.

2 In the subjoined piece the first, the middle, and the last letter of each line form the following salutation to the Pope : /Eternum salve praesul stans ordine Petri : —

" Aureus ordo micans c<?li de numine fulge/ Elichias vertex sacrati spermatis ome« Virtutum paret coluwen, sacratio celeby Auctor quippe boni c/aro mirabilis act// Ecclesiam tali nuptu^ulcrescit, ut uber Antistes sacris et n?x inolesceret unus Verbi voce potitus o/ive crismate {\1s\1s Terrarum custos sokmen preclue necnow Sanctus nam praesul wto de jure precatur Delectoe plebi trad/t noctando juvame;; Exemplum cunctis ut /Jlenus munere vitaf Tollere contendit primatum luminis ev/."

Ap. D., p. 140.

3 See his poems, ap. D. Others are given ap. M. G. PP., iv. 413 ff. Among those in the latter collection the following verses will be found : —

" Salve summus et unus, Sergi, gloria mundi Vertex et decus orbis, Tu victor rerum," etc. — No. III.

" Ecce non unum pateris secundum, Non tibi compar sociale quiddam, Quippe sed subsunt tremibunda cuncta, Sergie summe." — No IV.

" Lucida dum current annosi sidera mundi, Candida, sancte, tui, Sergi, venerabimur ora." — No. VI. On Vulgarius himself, cf. M. G. PP., iv. 406 f.

SERGIUS III. 125

summoned to Rome to explain or justify his wild writing. For we find him dispatching letters not only to the Pope, but to the officials of his court, begging that he might be allowed to remain in peace where he was. To the former he writes 1 that, though raised to the seventh heaven by the Pope's gracious letter, and though regarding the Pope as a god among men, he fears the gods when they show them- selves too kindly disposed (nimium faventes) ! And be- cause he has reason to lament, he continues, that morality, and all other good with it, has perished, he is afraid of everything, and begs the Pope to grant him one only favour, viz. his absolution and benediction on the one hand, and leave to stay in his cell on the other. Bishop Vitalis, "the apocrisiarius of the supreme see and first senator,"2 is asked to use his influence on his behalf that he may not have to go to Rome, " as the anger of the drawn sword is not easily repressed," but that he may get the Pope's forgiveness. His request was no doubt granted. And if, as seems to some very likely, he was the author of the Invectiva, he managed in that work to defend the cause of Formosus without attacking Sergius. What was the upshot of this ordination controversy there is no means of knowing. Very little historical light pierces the darkness of this period. Some writers, however, from the words of the epitaph of Sergius, which tell how he loved all ranks of men alike (atnat pastor agmina cuncta simul), conclude that before he died he mitigated the severity of his judgments, and ceased to trouble such as had been consecrated by Formosus.

1 Ap D., p. 143.

2 lb., p. 145. To the letter to Vitalis he appends a few verses. We quote the last two. The alliteration of the last line is another indi- cation of the style of Vulgarius :—

" Optineas cupimus, longos feliciter annos Vitalis vivens vitali vivere vita.''"

126 SERGIUS III.

As the theological bearings of historical facts are not the concern of an historian, this is not the place to inquire whether the action of Stephen (VI.) VII. and Sergius III. in declaring the ordinations of a bishop null shows that they at any rate were not infallible. We may, however, be permitted to remark that, though it was not till the thirteenth century that the doctrine of the Church on the transmission of the power of order reached its full develop- ment, and came to be definitely formulated and generally understood, it is certain that there never was any doubt that an ordination validly conferred could not be repeated. Whatever erroneous views certain medieval Popes may have held as to the circumstances which may invalidate an ordination, or whatever faulty lines of conduct some of them may have followed in consequence of the theories they held, nothing more can be deduced from their action than that, in the words of the great Gallican historian, Natalis Alexander,1 their errors were those of private men, and not those of the heads of the Church. Not one of the pontiffs who are known or are believed to have held false views on the conditions which invalidate ordinations ever attempted to impose his ideas on the Church. And the Popes, according to Catholic belief, are only infallible when they proclaim^what is revealed truth to the Church at large.2

Other discoveries, besides those of pamphlets of Auxilius and Vulgarius, have in comparatively recent times given a further insight into Sergius and his times. A rotulus, discovered in the archives of Prince Antonio Pio of Savoy, lets us see that Sergius was a man at least of strength of will. John of Ravenna, grievously oppressed by Albuinus,

1 " Sed conversationis error fuit non prasdicationis." Vol. vi. p. 23, ed. Paris, 1699.

2 Cf. Saltet, Les riordinations, p. 152 ff. ; Paris, 1907.

SERGIUS III. 127

count of Istria, appealed to Sergius for protection. This the Pope at once promised, and wrote (c. 907) to the count bidding him refrain from harassing the property of the archbishop. As might be anticipated, it required more than letters, in these times of violence, to bring nobles to order. Albuinus continued his depredations. But Sergius was not at the end of his resources. Berenger of Friuli was anxious to wear the imperial crown, and had approached the Pope through his ambassadors with that end in view. Sergius, therefore, not only wrote (910) to the bishop of Pola, the most important bishop in Istria, begging him to exhort Albuinus to cease his evil conduct and make amends to the archbishop, but made it known, through the medium of the same letter, that "he would never bestow the (imperial) crown on Berenger till he promised to take the (Istrian) March from Albuinus, and give it to some better man."1 We may be sure that, if it rested with Berenger of Friuli, Count Albuinus did not continue his depredations much longer.

While what we have said about the firmness of Sergius snva will have served to show both his views as to his rights with and regard to the imperial crown and the aims of Berenger ; Nonantula- what we shall proceed to say about the Pope's kindness and sympathetic feeling will call our attention to the continued ravages of the Saracen in the south of Italy and of the Hungarian in the north. Among other places devastated by the terrible ravages of the Saracens was the Church of Silva Candida, one of the suburbicarian bishoprics which developed into the sees of the six cardinal-bishops in the immediate neighbourhood of Rome. Silva Candida, which was united to the See of Porto by

1 " Berengarius rex non accipiet a nobis coronam donee promittat, ut tollat Albuino ipsam marcam (Istrias) et det earn alteri meliori quam ipse est." Jaffe, 3546. Cf. 3540-1-

128 SERGIUS III.

Pope Calixtus II., was at this time ruled by Bishop Hildebrand. Unable of his own resources to repair the damage done to his episcopal see, Hildebrand turned to the Pope, and the assistance he asked for he received " in the current eighth indiction," l i.e., in 905.

Another2 of his bulls shows Sergius rejoicing that the church of the great abbey of Nonantula, burnt by the Hungarians,3 had been rebuilt. In an old catalogue (eleventh century) of the abbots of Nonantula, published by Waitz,4 there is the following entry : — " In this year (899) the Hungarians came into Italy. On September 24 the Christians met them in battle on the river Brenta. There the Hungarians slew many thousands of the Christians and put the rest to flight. They then advanced as far as Nonantula, slew the monks, set fire to the monastery, burnt many books5 (codices), and devastated the whole country. The venerable Abbot Leopard, however, with

1 Jaflfe, 3535 (2715). The diocese " passa est a nefandissima Sarra- cenorum gente, sicut ruina ipsius loci testatur, et plebs atque casalia quae pene absque agricolis et habitatoribus esse noscuntur." Ep. 3, ap. P. L., t. 131. Sergius also granted several estates to the Abbess Euphemia, as the property of her convent had also been ruined by the Saracens. Cf. the bull cited by Gregorovius, Rome, iii. p. 245.

2 /*., 3539 <27i8).

3 Ep. 9, ap. P. L., t. 191, similarly is a privilege for the monastery of St. Martin of Tours, which had suffered " a Normannorum perfida gente."

1 Ap. M. G. SS. Langob., 571 f.

5 When the professors of learning and its instruments were being destroyed in this way, there is no need to be astonished that there was intellectual darkness in Italy at this time. What "many books" may mean, we may perhaps conjecture from the library of another Italian monastery, Nova Lux, at the foot of Mount Cenis, which was destroyed by the Saracens of Fraxineto, about the time of Sergius. Fearing the destruction of the monastery, the abbot had transported its treasures to Turin ; and among these the monastic chronicler with just pride names 6000 books : " Et inter cetera delati sunt libri sex mille." Cf. Chron. Novaliciensc, iv. c. 26-30, ed. M. G. SS. in usum sch. The edition in A\ /. SS., ii. pt. ii. is not so complete.

SERGIUS III. 129

a few of his brethren, managed to escape, and for some time remained in concealment. At length they thought it safe to return. The monastery and its church were rebuilt, and the abbot sent to consult with Pope Sergius, who then ruled the Roman and Apostolic Church, regarding the reconsecration of the (abbey) church and the losses the monastery had sustained at the hands of the bar- barians and other wicked men." The Pope in his reply gave the abbot a choice of one out of three bishops, whom he named, to whom he might apply to have the new church consecrated, and confirmed the privileges of the monastery.

Passing over the privileges granted by Sergius to the Various famous monasteries of St. Gall in Switzerland, Vezelay in Sergius. France, to the churches of Vienne and Lyons and to the chapter of Aste, as these records are somewhat monotonous; and equally neglecting his dealings with William, the good bishop of Turin, and with the Church of Cologne on the Hamburg-Bremen question, for the simple reason that our knowledge of these transactions is of the haziest ; and, after what has been already said on the subject in the Life of Formosus, saying no more about Sergius and England,1 we may now turn our attention to the East.

At this period there was peace and union between the The Catholics under the Emperor Leo and those under the among the

Greeks.

various rulers of the West. But the causes which were to bring about the great separation between them were gaining strength. Of these the most insidious, because the least comprehensible, and because it was the only one which had at least a seeming dogmatic basis, was the alleged difference

1 In the Chronicle of Ethel werd. an. 908, we read: "Archbishop Plegmund .... carried to Rome the alms for the people and for King Edward."

VOL. IV. 9

130 SERGIUS III.

in belief among the Greeks and the Latins on the doctrine of the Descent of the Holy Ghost. That the Latins had deviated from revealed truth on this difficult question was an assertion which had been frequently repeated among the Greeks since the days of Photius. Finding that it was being propagated with renewed vigour, Sergius took steps to combat it. And so the council of Trosle, in the diocese of Soissons, presided over by Herveus, archbishop of Rheims, decreed (June 909) in their fourteenth canon : " As the Holy Apostolic See has made known to us that the blasphemous errors of a certain Photius against the Holy Ghost are still vigorous in the East — errors which teach that the Holy Spirit proceeds not from the Son but from the Father only — we exhort you venerable brethren, together with us, in accordance with the admonition of the ruler of the Roman See, after a careful study of the works of the Fathers, to draw from the quiver of Holy Writ arrows sharp enough to slay the monster which is again springing into life." We may be sure, however, that the " fury of the Normans," though soon (911) to be lessened by the grant of Normandy to them, prevented the Fathers of the council from being able to turn their attention to any arrows but those of a very material nature. The name One consequence, however, of this action which Sergius is struck caused to be taken by the synod was that his name was diptychs. struck off the diptychs by the Patriarch Sergius II. of Constantinople (999-1019). This we learn from a Greek document of the first half of the twelfth century.1 Another similar document of the last half of the preceding century, apparently not so well informed, declares that Pope Christopher was the first Pope who, in his profession of faith, which he sent to Sergius, then (?) patriarch of

1 Ofiusc, ii., c. 9, p. 168, ap. Mon. Graca ad Photium pertinent., ed. Hergenroether ; Ratisbon, 1869.

SERGIUS III. 131

Constantinople, asserted that the Holy Ghost proceeded " from the Father and from the Son." l

While the canon of Trosle is an indication that the The fourth

marriage of

poison brewed by Photius is slowly weakening the religious Leo vi. union between the East and West, another intestine com- motion in the Church of Constantinople reveals the fact that as yet the Catholic Church among both the Greeks and Latins is still one. The Emperor Leo, misnamed the Wise, though he had himself2 in this particular brought the civil law into harmony with Greek canon law by causing it also to subject to penalties those who elected to marry a third time, not only married a third wife, but, when her death left him still without male issue, introduced into the palace as his concubine Zoe Carbonospina, a grand-niece of the historian Theophanes.3 By her he had a son (905), after- wards the literary Constantine VII., Porphyrogenitus. On condition that he ceased to live with a concubine, the patri- arch, Nicholas the Mystic, or private secretary, solemnly baptized the child. Leo fulfilled his promise to Nicholas by breaking his father's law which forbade fourth marriages. He married Zoe, and crowned her himself! The indig- nant patriarch, who showed himself of very different mettle from the average occupant of the See of Constantinople, excommunicated the priest who had performed the nuptial ceremony, and interdicted Leo from entering the Church. Both parties turned to the Holy See ; and the legates, whom Sergius at once dispatched to Constantinople, declared the marriage valid, as fourth marriages had not

1 Ofiusc, i., c. 8, p. 160, ap. id. 2 Novel,, Constit., 90.

3 The feeling of the Greek Church on the subject of third and fourth marriages may be estimated from the strong language of St. Gregory Nazianzen : — " Marriage is lawful ; a second marriage is a concession (to human weakness), but a third is unlawful, while to contract a fourth is to lead the life of a pig.'' Cited by Hesseling, La civilisation byzantine, p. 164 ; Paris, 1907.

132 SERGIUS III.

been condemned by the Church at large.1 Nicholas, how- ever, though he acknowledged the supremacy of Rome in words, would not give way. He was accordingly banished, and Euthymius, the emperor's confessor, was named patriarch in his stead. Without expressly approving of third or fourth marriages, Euthymius recognised Leo's marriage as necessary for the public good (for an heir to the throne was very desirable), readmitted the emperor to ecclesiastical communion, and crowned Constantine.2 A schism among the clergy of Constantinople was the immediate result of this compliance on the part of Euthymius, and of the obstinate opposition of Nicholas. Before he died, Leo repented of what he had done, and reinstated Nicholas. But the latter had to reckon with the party of Euthymius, who showed themselves very hostile to him. Hence, during the reign of Alexander, a joint-ruler with the young Constantine VII., he wrote to Pope Anastasius III., not, as he said, to ask him to condemn his predecessor or the repentant Leo, but to condemn those still alive who were causing their patriarch such trouble. " This both your dignity and the honour of the Roman See require of you." Of any action taken by Anastasius in

1 Cf. Vita Euthymii, c. 13, p. 46.

■ Cf. the letters of Nicholas, ap. Mai, Spicil. Rom., x. ; the continua- tors of Theophanes, vi. 23, 24, ed. Bonn. Of the letters of Nicholas, the important one in this connection is that to Pope Anastasius III., viz. ep. 32, printed also, as already stated, in Labbe. In that letter Nicholas concedes to the Roman Church the privilege 0/ ecclesiastical supremacy (irpovo/xlov iKK\ri<Tia<TriKT\s virtpoxvs), Mai, p. 293. The Latin version in Labbe runs : — "Et quidem decebat, primatum ecclesiasticum sibi — the Roman legates — vindicantes, rem totam serio inquirere, atque ad summum pontificem referre." He says he believes that any number of successive marriages are tolerated at Rome, and indignantly denies that, " puffed up with pride," he had refused to meet the Pope's legates. Maintaining, however, that a fourth marriage was wrong in itself, he vigorously upbraids the Pope for attempting to grant a dispensation which would make a sin not a sin.

SERGIUS III. 133

response to this letter we have no knowledge. Some nine years after Nicholas had written to Anastasius, a synod {silentium) was held at Constantinople (920) in which fourth marriages were utterly condemned.1 The patriarch hastened to inform2 John X. that, after fifteen years of trouble, peace had come to the Church of Constantinople. " But because we seek your fraternal love, the good offices of which towards us have been hindered by the disorders of the times, and desire the customary union of the churches, we have hence decided to send you this letter that, all memory of offence being laid aside, we may win your Holiness to that sincere friendship and union of minds which is proper among pastors of souls. This will be brought about when legates have been sent on both sides, and when it has been harmoniously decreed that the fourth marriage, which brought such dissensions and scandal into the Church, was permitted not for itself but for the sake of the person. The occasion required that a more indulgent treatment should be meted to a prince, lest, irritated by a refusal, he might do worse. And hence your name will, as of old custom, be celebrated with ours in the sacred diptychs of the Church of Constantinople." The emperor is set down as making the same request, and as sending to the Pope the protospathar Basil, while the patriarch sends a priest with him. John is asked to send a legate in return, " who with us, in accordance with the canons of the Church, may by his learning and advice correct anything which may still stand in need of correction."

• l Cf. the decree of the joint emperors Constantine and Romanus, " indictione octava " (ap. Liverani, vol. iv. No. 17). For some reason Liverani calls this a decree to bring about union between the Greek and the Latin Churches. Its object was to bring about union among the Greeks themselves. Hence it begins : '"Tomus unionis, sive expositio sanctas unionis in ecclesia Constantinopolitana." 2 Labbe, ix. 1267 ; or Liverani, No. 18.

134 SERGIUS III.

From a letter l of Nicholas to Simeon, the powerful king of the Bulgarians, it appears that John sent two legates, both bishops, Theophylactus 2 and Carus. "By their coming," wrote the patriarch, " an end was put to the scandals which the fourth-marriage question caused amongst us, peace was restored to the clergy, and synods were held with marvellous unanimity of minds. In a word, the Churches of Rome and Constantinople were so welded together in one united faith that there was nothing to prevent us from enjoying that communion with them we have so ardently longed for."

Without pausing to note how this marriage difficulty showed on the one hand the greater breadth of view of the Roman Church, and, on the other, that at this period East and West were united under the primacy of the See of Rome, it remains to add that the schism among the Greeks themselves was not healed, as Nicholas had fondly hoped. After his death (925), the party of Euthymius was to the fore till the very end of the century.3

In connection with the deposition of Nicholas, it may

be noted in passing that the tenth century saw well-nigh

as many patriarchs arbitrarily deposed by emperors at

Constantinople as Popes by factions at Rome.

There- While endeavouring to close a schism in the living

otthe Church of Constantinople, Sergius III., of whom for some

Lateran.

1 Ap. Liverani, ib., p. 65.

a lb., " primum inter ejus episcopos locum obtinentem." 3 Hergenroether, Hist, de Ptglise, iii. 436. On the fourth marriage of Leo see especially Diehl, Figures byzantines, i. 181 ff., Paris 1906. Diehl's essay, founded to some extent on a recently discovered bio- graphy of Euthymius, throws a flood of light on the haughty and intrigu- ing character of Nicholas, whose respect for either Pope or Emperor was of the feeblest. He was a forerunner of Michael Cerularius. The Vita Euthymii has been published, in Greek only, by C. D. Boor ; Berlin, 1888.

SERGIUS III. 135

little space we have lost sight, was engaged in repairing a very important material church at home. This was the famous basilica of the Lateran, which, as we have seen, went to ruin in the days of Stephen (VI.) VII., and which, by all the chroniclers of his time, Sergius III. is credited with restoring.

From inscriptions which he found in various parts of the basilica, and of which copies are to be seen either in the body of his work on the Lateran basilica or in an appendix to it in the Sessorian MS. 290, and from other sources, John the Deacon has put on record the following account of the work of Sergius. After recounting the building of the basilica by Constantine in honour of our Saviour and in commemoration of St. John the Baptist, and its fall in the time of Stephen (VI.) VII. and its remaining in ruins till the time of the recall of Sergius, John continued: "Whilst the intruders occupied the Apostolic See, they took from the basilica all its treasures, all its ornaments of gold and silver, and all the vessels which had been presented to it from its foundation. Divine service was no longer celebrated within its walls, but it was abandoned to thorns and briars. Sick at heart at the desolation of this most glorious building, Sergius entirely rebuilt and refurnished it," at the same time covering its walls with frescoes. A long inscription in prose, which John quoted, not only set forth that Sergius accomplished what he did though "placed in the midst of many disorders," but also enumerated the different objects, images, crucifixes, etc., of silver " and most pure gold" with which he supplied the basilica. "All these things has the devoted lord Sergius III. offered thee; nor will he cease to make offerings to thee as long as his soul rules his body." In yet another inscription it is proclaimed that the basilica was like Mount Sinai : from the latter was

136 SERGIUS III.

the old Law given; from the former laws are issued to elevate everywhere the race of men.1

There would appear to be a little exaggeration in some parts of the language of the worthy Deacon, or of the in- scriptions from which he quotes. It is quite impossible to think of any other "intruder" who could have robbed the basilica but the antipope Christopher; and we can have no reason to doubt that the fallen church occupied the attention of all the successors of Stephen (VI.) VII., for we have actual evidence of one of them, Pope John IX., endeavouring to prepare the way for its repair.2 The new building, at any rate, seems to have become very dear to the Popes, for "henceforward, during a course of two hundred years, it served, instead of St. Peter's, as the burial-place of the greater number of the Popes."3

By such as are prepared to yield full credence to party pamphleteers, to the party pleadings of Auxilius, and to Vulgarius, who at one time accuses Sergius of the murder of his two predecessors and at another calls him " a god among men, the glory of his country, on whose life Rome depends for her happiness,"4 — by such, no doubt,

1 This last inscription runs :—

"Aula Dei hxc similis Synai sacra jura ferenti Ut lex demonstrat hie quae fuit edita quondam Lex hinc exivit mentes qune ducit ab imis Et vulgata dedit nomen per climata saecli."

(Duchesne, L.P., ii. 236.) n., Di feci. I.at., c. 17, ap. Migne, t. 194 or t. 78. The paintings executed by Sergius are alluded to in one of the inscriptions ("ornavit pingens haec mcenia"), and in Benedict of Soracte ("quanta donaria .... optulit .... in picture renovationis scriptum est "). 1 Cf. supra, p. 97.

cgorovius, Rome, iii. 247. " O dulce pignus, hominum deus, patrhc decus : te vivente Roma te obeunte versa fortuna qua: sit ncscitur futura." Ep. ad Serg., ap. Durn., p. 144. It may be that when Vulgarius wrote this letter he wat better informed than when he wrote his diatribes against Sergius.

SERGIUS III. 137

Sergius will be regarded as ambitious and cruel. But we imagine that not even these will be too ready to accept the story told by Liutprand which impugns the chastity of Sergius in addition. In fact, the more importance one attaches to the pamphlets of Auxilius and Vulgarius, the less importance can he attach to the accusations of Liut- prand. It cannot be doubted that, had these writers known anything against the moral character of Sergius, they would not have failed to record it. But if, on the contrary, a preference should be felt for the authority of Liutprand in estimating the character of Sergius, such preference, it would appear, can only be entertained by a violation of the dictates of sound historical criticism; for, by his hopeless confusion of Sergius with Stephen (VI.) VII., Liutprand shows that he did not know about whom he was talking. And such an authority as Muratori declares repeatedly that Liutprand is a very second-rate witness for what did not occur in his own time.1

His evidence then, whatever it may be worth concerning the immorality of Sergius, is as follows 2 : — Theodora, the grandmother of Alberic II., i.e. Theodora I., whom he designates as a shameless harlot, obtained, " in no unmanly way," supreme power in the city of Rome. She had two daughters, Marozia (I.) and Theodora (II.), women more abandoned than their mother herself. By their marriages, legitimate and illegitimate, with various distinguished persons, popes, dukes of Tuscany, and kings of Italy, they were enabled to work their will in Rome. By Pope Sergius, Marozia, so says Liutprand, had a son, afterwards Pope John XI.; and with John X., both before and after he be-

1 " Liutprando ha la disgrazia d' essere stato un cattivo storico per conto de gli affari non succeduti al suo tempo." Annal., viii. 191. Cf. pp. 244, 264.

2 Antapod., ii. 48. And in iii. 43 he speaks of John XI., "quern ex Sergio papa meretrix ipsa genuerat."

138 SERGIUS III.

came Pope, she is said to have had illicit intercourse. Hence various writers x have described the government of Rome at this period as that of a Pornocracy.

That these women had great influence in Rome at this period can scarcely be doubted. Benedict of Soracte, quoting the words of Isaias (iii. 4), " the effeminate shall rule over them," is at one with Liutprand as far as that statement goes.2 And we have already seen the husband of Theodora I. described by Vulgarius as "the lord of the city." The faction of Theophylactus and his family were certainly dominant in Rome in the days of Sergius, and of the Popes that succeeded him during some sixty years ; and if the Patricians Crescentii were indeed, as we have supposed,3 descended directly from Theodora I. through her daughter Theodora II., then it may be said that the house of Theophylactus swayed the destinies of Rome till the accession of the German Popes. The title of this volume, therefore, might well have been, " The Popes and the House of Theophylactus."

Theodora and her daughters, then, may easily have had great influence in Rome, and yet not have been the abandoned women that Liutprand would have us believe they were. Wives and daughters of the heads of a dominant faction, especially if endowed with grace of body and mind, would naturally occupy an influential position ; and such a proud position Theodora and her daughters may have acquired without that wholesale prostitution of

1 The strictures of the great cardinal-historian Baronius on this period ought not to be quoted as in any way authoritative. He was not in possession of many facts which have come to light since his time, and his work for these years is as confused as the times them- selves. Cf. Muratori, Ann., viii. p. 277.

| In his style, almost unique in its barbarity, he writes (c. 30) : ■ Subjugatus est Romam potestative in manu femine."

1 See the genealogical table.

SERGIUS III. 139

their charms and persons of which speaks that indecent gossip and imperial partisan, Liutprand. And unless Vulgarius was one of the most audacious flatterers that ever disgraced mankind, Theodora I. cannot have been the disorderly creature that Liutprand paints her. Vul- garius addresses 1 her as a most holy, venerable, and God- beloved matron, the odour of whose piety is spread every- where, and says that he has heard from many of her holy life and conversation ; and he rejoices that God has set her as a shining example to the world. Especially does he praise in her a virtue which he declares to be greatly wanting in the world, viz. her chastity. Marozia and Theodora could, then, have been much worse than their mother, and yet still have been good.

Returning to the subject of this biography, we may ask : Was John XI. the son of Pope Sergius by the abandoned Marozia ? Liutprand says he was, and so does the author of the anonymous catalogue in the Liber Pontificalis in his one-line notice of John XI. But the catalogue by no means deserves at all times the respect which Duchesne seems disposed to allow it. It is certain that the notice of Sergius himself in the catalogue was not written down during the lifetime of that pontiff; nay, apparently not for some time after it. For, speaking of the inscriptions set up by him in the Lateran, the author of the catalogue says that they can be read " to this day " {usque hodie). Men do not write in that way of an inscription erected a few years before. Liutprand's assertion was not written down till about fifty years after the supposed criminal intercourse. While, then, authors anything but strictly con- temporary call John XI. the son of Sergius, the careful,

1 Ep. ad Theod., ap. D., p. 146. " Et quidem amplectimur in vos, quod deesse permaxime cernimus in viros, scilicet sanctum conubium, torum immaculatum, hospitalitates, selemosinas," etc.

1 40 SERGIUS III.

respectable, and contemporary author Frodoard twice describes John XI. as "the brother of Alberic."1 What more natural than to believe that, as Alberic was con- fessedly the son of Alberic (I.) and Marozia, so also was his brother, John XL? Besides, what is left on record of the deeds of Pope Sergius certainly suggests a man " in the midst of troubles" indeed, as he said himself, but a man devoted to work, and not to luxury. When Duchesne speaks2 of him as " revengeful, cruel, and mischievous," he evidently regards as true all that Auxilius, and especially Vulgarius and Liutprand, have said about him ; and, with regard to Liutprand especially, it must be repeated that he is wholly unworthy of credence with regard to Sergius III. and John X. He confuses, as we have seen, this very Sergius whom he so freely accuses, with Stephen VII. In referring to John X.3 he makes mistakes of all kinds about his See of Ravenna ; and, when speaking of his death and of his successor, apparently knows nothing of the two pontiffs who immediately succeeded him.4 Sergius was, unfortun- ately, a pronounced party -man, and anxious for the supremacy of his party, but the charges of revengeful cruelty and lust brought against him by Vulgarius and Liutprand must be pronounced " not proven " ; for the charge of his having murdered his two immediate pre- decessors rests solely on the authority of a wretched

1 Ann., 933, and Hist. Rem., iv., ap. M. G. SS., xiii. p. 580. Bene- dict of Soracte, whose confusion of the events of this period is simply hopeless, calls (c. 30) John XI. a relation of domna senatrix, viz. Marozia. Muratori and others, who quote Leo Ostiensis and the anonymous Chronicle of Salerno as stating expressly that John XI. was the son of Alberic, have failed to notice that those authors are both obviously speaking of the John who became Pope in 956, viz. John XII. Hemans, Hist, of Medieval Christ., p. 10, concludes: Sergius "was accused of an amorous intrigue with Marozia, but without shadow of proof."

» LVtat pontif., p. 165. » Antapod., ii. 48. 4 //;., iii. 43.

SERGIUS III. 141

sycophant (Vulgarius), and that of his illicit intercourse with Marozia rests chiefly on the word of a careless, spiteful retailer of indecent gossip. Men of that stamp may tell the truth about a personal or political opponent, but their character causes a judicial mind to hesitate about believing what they alone say to his deep discredit. We may then hold with Muratori:1 "Had the biography of this pontiff been written, and come down to our times, I firmly maintain that his character would have appeared in a very different light from that in which the father of the ecclesiastical annals (viz. Baronius) was too easily led to present it."

When he says2 that "the denarii of Sergius III. are not Coins. marked with the name of the Emperor Louis," Gregorovius must have been following the mistake made by Cinagli, who, as was noticed in an earlier volume of this work, assigned to Sergius II. a coin bearing the names of both Sergius and Louis, which seemingly could only have belonged to Sergius III.3 It is true, however, that most of the extant coins of Sergius III. were struck after the year 905, and bear only the names of the Pope and St. Peter. On the reverse, besides the name of St. Peter, some of them have a figure of the saint wearing a mitre. One couples the name of Sergius with the significant epithet " Salus patrie."

That Sergius died in 911 is certain, but whether on Death and April 14 (Duchesne) or about June (JafTe) is not so clear. 9?^^ ' Mallius, who has preserved this Pope's epitaph, confusing

1 Annal.yVm. 278. Gregorovius, Rome, iii. 245, too believes that our estimate of the character of Sergius, at least as drawn from Liutprand, " might be modified were the conditions of the time more clearly known."

2 lb., 248 n.

3 Promis, however (p. 59), despite the fact that no Emperor Louis was contemporary with Sergius II., would nevertheless assign the coin to that Pope.

142 SERGIUS III.

him with Sergius I., says he was buried in the Church of St. Peter, between the Silver gate and that of Ravenna. His epitaph he gives thus ' : —

" Limina quisque adis Papae metuenda beati

Cerne pii excubiasque (exuviasque) Petri. Culmen apostolicae Sedis is, jure paterno

Electus, tenuit, ut Theodorus obit. Pellitur Urbe pater, pervadit sacra Joannes,

Romuleosque greges dissipat ipse lupus. Exul erat patria septem volventibus annis ;

Post populi multis Urbe redit precibus. Suscipitur, papa sacratur,2 Sede recepta

Gaudet, amat pastor agmina cuncta simul Hie invasores sanctorum falce subegit

Romanae ecclesiae judiciisque patrum."

It tells of his uncanonical election {jure paterno) on the death of Theodore, of his expulsion from the city, of the usurpation of John IX., of his seven years of exile, of his recall at the prayer of the people, of his love for all his flock, and of his condemnation of the usurpers of the Holy See. That he was, moreover, worthy to be ranked with bishops who were saints, is not said by his epitaph, but by his contemporary, Nicholas, patriarch of Constantinople.3

1 Ap. L. P., ii. 238. Cf. supra, p. 93.

* Cf. once more Vulgarius, ap. D., p. 152 :—

" Sergius, ecce, polos magnus qui vertice pulsat, Dignus apostolicus divino munere lectus, Mistice qui factus conformis imagine divum Aurea priscorum reparat nunc secla virorum.

Quocirca tantus vivat per secula prassul Pontificum primas, antistes summus et unus, Assiduis precibus dominus poscatur ab alto." 3 Ep. 43-

ANASTASIUS III,

A.D. 911-913.

Sources. — As before, and one bull, ap. P. Z., t. 131.

Of the two successors of Sergius III., it may be said that Election. nothing is known except that it appears from their epitaphs and from Frodoard l that they were good men and were an honour to the See of Peter. Anastasius, a Roman, and the son of Lucian, became Pope in some month, perhaps in April (Duchesne) or June (Jaffe), in the year 911.

In the following year he granted Ragembert, bishop of Grants

privileges*

Vercelli, the use of the pallium ; 2 and besides renewing the privileges 3 of the Church of Grado, he is credited by Sigonius,4 who as usual gives no authority for his state- ment, with granting various distinctions to the bishop of Pavia at the request of King Berenger. The bishop was to be allowed to have a canopy {umbelld) carried over him,

1 " Quo (Sergio) rebus adempto

Humanis, in Anastasium sacra concinit aula."

It is no use quoting any more from Frodoard, for in citing the epitaph -of Anastasius we shall cite Frodoard.

2 Jaffe, 3550 (2722). 3 lb., 3552. 4 Ap. Pagi in vit.Anxst.

143

144 ANASTASIUS III.

to ride a white horse, to have the cross borne before him, and in councils to sit at the Pope's left hand. Vdshiaws Little as we may know now about many of the Popes of yAaas- certain periods, various striking pieces of evidence have sometimes survived which show that, though to us Rome and the Popes may at times look obscure enough, they were often at those very times bright and lightsome to their contemporaries. This is not unfrequently true of Rome and the Popes of the tenth century. While Anastasius III. sat in the chair of Peter, little Wales was ruled by a wise king called Howel Dda, or the Good. Dissatisfied with the existing state of the laws, the king, with some of his bishops and nobles, betook himself to Rome " to consult the wise in what manner to improve the laws of Wales." On the strength of the information there obtained, the king, after his return to Wales, drew up a new code of laws ; " and after that Howel went a second time to Rome, and obtained the judgment of the wise there, and ascertained those laws to be in accordance with the law of God and the laws of countries in receipt of faith and baptism." According to the ancient Welsh document1 whence the above quotations have been taken, Howel went to Rome to get his laws confirmed some time between the years 920 and 930. But the preface to the Laws themselves, according to the Dimetian Code, assigns the date of Howel's visit to the pontificate of Anastasius, though it gives the year as 914. It says: " After the law had been all made .... Howel the Good .... went to Rome, to Pope Anastasius, to read the law, and to see if there were anything contrary to the law of God in it ; and as there was nothing militating against it, it was confirmed. . . . The year of Christ, when King Howel the Good went to Rome to confirm his laws by

1 Bruty Tywysogy cited in Haddan and Stubbs, Councils, i. 209 f.,

ANASTASIUS III. H5

papal authority, was 914." x Rome must indeed have been "a city on a mountain "when, even amid the darkness and confusion of the tenth century, it was looked up to from the deep valleys of Wales as the abode of light and learning.

While in Rome the political situation, which left the Political Pope in a jp virion subordinate to a dominant faction, remained uivcnanged, elsewhere events were in progress which were soon to have a marked effect on affairs in Italy and its chief city. The influence and power of the Greek emperor was steadily increasing in south Italy.2 This state of affairs was so far fortunate that it furnished John X. with an additional resource when he gave his great blow to the Saracen power in that quarter. In Germany the terribly disastrous reign of Louis the Child came to an end in 911. His was a reign during which contemporaries tell us that every man's hand was against his neighbour's; that the nobles, who ought to have been promotors of peace, set an example of strife ; that the law was trampled underfoot ; and that the common people murmured and were com- pletely out of hand. With the death of Louis the Child the Carolingian dynasty in Germany, strictly speaking, came to an end. However, as his successor, Conrad the Fran- conian, was a Frank, and was thought to be connected with the family of Arnulf, he is reckoned with the Carolingian sovereigns of Germany. On his death (918) the royal power passed, in the person of Henry I., to the house of Saxony,3 a house which, especially under the Othos, was

1 Id., Councils, i., p. 220, 1. Cf. the Venedotian Code, which tells that the Pope "was satisfied with them (the laws), and gave them his autho- rity." " Ac y bu uodlawn y Pab udunt ac y rodes y awdurdawt udunt."

2 Muratori, Annul., viii. 297.

3 The famous nun Hroswitha, in her poem on the deeds of Otho I., sings of this transference, when the King of Kings

" Jussit Francorum transferri nobile regnum Ad claram gentem Saxonum." — Ap. P. I., t. 137, p. 1151. VOL. IV. IO

146 ANASTASIUS III.

to exercise an extraordinary influence on the Papacy. It was also during the reign of Anastasius that Rodolf II. succeeded to the throne of Transjurane Burgundy. We shall soon see him fighting in Italy for its iron crown, and At least two coins of this Pope, bearing his name and

fpitaph,

>i3- that of St. Peter, are known. Anastasius was buried in

St. Peter's about the middle (in June or August, following Duchesne or JarTe respectively) of the year 913. We are indebted as usual to Mallius1 for his epitaph: —

" Vatis Anastasii requiescunt membra sepulchro Sed numquam meritum parvula claudit humus. Sedem apostolicam blando moderamine rexit

Tertius existens ordine pontificum. Ad Christum pergens peccati vincula sperat

Solvere clementer omnia posse sibi."

As given in Watterich (i. 86), it has the following two lines in addition : —

" Undique currentes hujus ad limina templi Ut pnestet requiem, poscite corde Deum."

The epitaph tells us that the tomb enclosed indeed the bones of Anastasius III., but could not contain his merits, and that he ruled the Apostolic See right well. He died trusting that his sins would be forgiven him. " Do you who from all quarters come to this temple, pray God to grant him rest."

1 Ap. Duchesne, L. P., ii. 239.

LANDUS,

A.D. 913-914.

SOME twelve years ago there was discovered in the This

Pope's

neighbourhood of Rome a bronze coin of this Pope. name. On the obverse were the words, " Landus P. P.," and on the reverse were the heads of SS. Peter and Paul, with the letters " S. PA. S. PE." This coin serves, among other purposes, to prove that this Pope's name was Lando (in Latin Landus) and not Landone 1 (Lando).

Concerning Lando, then, a native of the Sabina, and the His reign. son of Taino, we know, from Frodoard, that he was a worthy man who sat on the chair of Peter for some six months. A Ravennese document2 proves that he was still alive on February 5, 914. He reigned, then, from July (Duchesne) or August (Jaffe) to February (Duchesne) or March (Jaffe) in 914, and is credited3 with having granted a privilege to the Church of St. Saviour's in Forum Novum in the Sabina.

The words of Frodoard about him are as follows. Jaffe

1 So observes Cerroti, Bibliog. di Roma, p. 345.

2 Ap. Jaffe, Regest., i., p. 448.

3 By a document of 143 1 quoted by Kehr, Italia Po?itiftcia, ii. 73.

147

I48 LANDUS

corrected the initial Quando of the text as we now have it into Lando, and would also have the ut of the second line changed into un : —

" Lando (quando) dein summam Petri subit ordine Sedem, Mensibus hanc coluit sex undenisque (ut denisque) diebus Emeritus Patrum sequitur quoque fata priorum."

rhofo, Alinan

A section of the frescoes of S. Tier in I rrado, showing the portrait <>f John X. See p. 116 ff.

JOHN X.

A.D. 914-928.

Sources and Works. — Of the printed works in five volumes of Mgr. F. Liverani, Macerata, 1859, the second, including some 560 closely printed pages, gives an exhaustive biography of John X. Rather exter^ive considerations on the " temporal power " and other kindred topics cause the volume to be so comparatively large. The first part of his fourth volume (Codice diplomatico e bollarid) gives in full the documents that concern John's reign.1 In vol. xxii. of the Archivio della R. Societa Romana, Roma, 1899, there is a useful article by Fedele on "La battaglia del Garigliano dell' anno 915." These two authors have been largely used in the composition of this biography. In his account of John's dealings with the Saracens, Liverani has unfortunately at times relied on certain chronicles published by Pratili, which have since been proved to be forgeries.

If history in general repeats itself, so certainly does its John vm.

and

biographical department. In reading the life of John X., John x. the mind instinctively adverts to that of John VIII. In the hope of putting a term to the existing state of chaos, and of promoting the sacred interests of peace, both pontiffs strove to impart new life to the imperial idea.

1 Many of them will be found ap. P. L., t. 132. 149

150 JOHN X.

Both of them brought about leagues, and fought in person against the savage hordes of the Saracen in Italy. For their political freedom at home both of them had to con- tend against an unbridled nobility. If there was intestine strife in the Church of Constantinople, reference was made to both John VIII. and John X., that peace might be restored to it. Both strove, though in different ways, to attach the Slavs to the Roman Church. And if a threat of excommunication was thought necessary to bring kings to a sense of their duty, neither of them was afraid to employ it.1 In all countries, both in the East and in the West, were heard the names of John VIII. and John X. when there was peace and order to be promoted. Of both of them it may be said that their energy in the promotion of good was untiring. And, if the Annals of Fulda have told truly of the end of John VIII., as a reward for all their zeal for the general welfare, both perished by a violent death. Hence, as in the case of John VIII. so in that of John X., most writers are of accord that he is " unquestion- ably entitled to respect"2 — at least for the sum of his qualities. " For however the archbishop of Ravenna might be no example of piety or holiness, as the spiritual head of Christendom, he appears to have been highly qualified for the secular part of his office. He was a man of ability and daring, eminently wanting at this juncture to save Rome from becoming the prey of Mohammedan conquest."8 Gregorovius goes so far as to give it as his opinion that,

1 A sharp letter of John X. to the abbot of Bobbio, first published by Mons. P. Piacenza (Parma, 1901), shows with what firmness he could reprehend ecclesiastics. The conclusion of the letter would seem to prove that some at least of the tenth century Popes preserved their letters. "Exemplar autem hujus nostri scripti apud nos in Scrinio S. R. E. retinemus, per quod te, si contemptor existeris, arguamus."

2 Hemans, Medieval Christ, in Italy, p. 1 5. 1 Milman, Latin Christ., iii. 291.

JOHN X. 151

in vigour and independence of character, John X. was superior to John VIII., and was the foremost statesman of the age. And at the conclusion of his account of this pontiff he writes : x " John X., however, the man whose sins are known only by report, whose great qualities are con- spicuous in history, stands forth amid the darkness of the time as one of the most memorable figures among the Popes. The acts of the history of the Church praise his activity, and his relations with every country of Christendom. And since he confirmed the strict rule of Cluny, they extol him further as one of the reformers of monasticism."

That which caused Baronius and earlier authors, who were Liutprand not cognisant of many documents which have since been John x. brought to light, to execrate the memory of John, and that which makes even modern writers speak in his praise with a certain amount of reservation, is the account of him to be read in the pages of Liutprand. That writer, who may be said to be solely responsible for the charges of immorality brought against Sergius III., was only born during the pontificate of John X., and makes as many mistakes in his story of that Pope as he did in that of Sergius III. However, he relates2 that whilst a certain Peter, the second in succession from Romanus, was arch- bishop of Ravenna, he had occasion frequently to send John, who was then his procurator {minister sues ecclesice), to Rome on business. Captivated by his handsome appearance, Theodora I. " compelled " him to sin with her repeatedly. In the meanwhile, the See of Bologna falling vacant, John was chosen its bishop, but before his consecration as bishop, Peter of Ravenna died. By the influence (instinctu)

1 Rome, iii. 280. Cf. p. 259.

2 Ant., ii. 48. "Theodora .... veneris calore succensa, in hujus spetiei decorem vehementer exarsit, seque hunc scortari solum non voluit, verum post etiam atque etiam compulit."

152 JOHN X.

of Theodora, John, against the canons, usurped the archiepiscopal see. Then, as the Pope who consecrated John at Rome died soon after he had performed that act, Theodora, unable to bear the thought of the distance that separated her from the object of her affections, " compelled " John to desert the See of Ravenna and usurp that of Rome.

In this short narrative there is a complete confusion of time and person. Of time: according to Liutprand, the Pope who consecrated John died shortly (modica temporis intercapedine) afterwards, and was succeeded by John. Now, it is certain from authentic documents1 that John was archbishop of Ravenna as early as the year 905, and consequently, that he did not succeed his consecrator, who must have been Sergius III.; nor was the interval between his consecration as bishop of Ravenna and his enthronisa- tion as Pope merely a trifling one. Of person : the bishop Peter, mentioned by Liutprand, if anybody at all, must have been Peter, bishop of Bologna, who ordained John deacon. The bishop of Ravenna at that time was Kailo.2 Leaving, then, to such as prefer to accept it, the story of Liutprand, "who was born during John's pontificate, and the value of whose statements is diminished by the frivolity of his character," 3 John's early career will now be sketched from more reliable sources.

Though it might be argued from the catalogue of Peter William4 that the subject of this biography, the son of another John, was a native of Ravenna, there seems to be a reliable tradition that he was really born some seven miles from Imola, at a place on the Santerno, whence the appellation " of Tossignano " is added to his name. Ordained deacon by Peter, bishop of Bologna, he was

1 In Fantuzzi, Mon. Rav., cited by Liverani, ii. 194.

2 Invect.) p. 836. 3 Gregorovius, Rome, iii. 249. 4 L. P., ii. 240.

JOHN X. 153

elected in 905 to be archbishop of Ravenna.1 According to Liverani,2 he had, whilst archbishop, to vindicate his rights both against a would-be usurper of his see, and against the abbot of the famous monastery of Nonantula, who was anxious to free it from the control of the arch- bishops of Ravenna.

From the ancient chronicle of Monte Cassino, just cited, Elected

Pope, 914. it appears that John was invited to be bishop of Rome by

the nobles ; i.e., by a faction of them probably. Of this

party Theodora may very well have been one, if not the

head. It is generally agreed that John of Ravenna took

possession of the Roman See in March 914. That he is

called an intruder into the Holy See by various historians

more or less contemporary, is due to the fact that they

disapproved of translations from see to see, and called all

such as left one see for another intruders.

From whatever motive John was summoned to be the

head of the Church, whether it was the one assigned by

Liutprand ; whether it was because he was known to be

an opponent3 of the ordinations of Formosus; or whether

it was because he was thought to be qualified for the

position, certain it is that he at once showed himself the

man whom the times imperatively needed.

1 This statement is made from a comparison between the author of the hivectiva, who was opposed to John, but wrote during his reign, and the Chron. S. Bened. Cas., ap. M. G. SS. Langob., p. 484, and Liutprand. The passage of the Invect. is corrupt. It runs : " Defuncto vero Petro, idem Joannes Bonihensem (?) ecclesiam, vivente Kailone, .... invadere praesumpsit .... qua (?) relicta .... Romanam ecclesiam .... usurpavit," p. 836. Probably defimcto and vivente have changed places, and Bonihensem should be Ravennatem, as it is certain that the see which John exchanged for Rome was Ravenna, and there would be no violation of the canons in a deacon of the See of Bologna becoming its bishop.

■ il, p. 194 ff.

3 Duchesne, De Fe/at fiont., p. 169, on what authority I know not, says that he did condemn the ordinations of Formosus.

154 J0HN x-

Casting his glance round the Church to ascertain what called most urgently for his attention, John soon saw that no good could be done by him until the terrible ravages of the Saracens on the Garigliano and in the Sabina were stopped. These marauders had been the scourge of south Italy from before the middle of the preceding century ; and, from 882, when they established themselves on an eminence above the right bank of the Garigliano l which separated the petty principalities of Gaeta and Capua, they were con- stantly ravaging the surrounding country even up to the walls of Rome. The famous abbeys of Monte Cassino, of Farfa, and of St. Vincent on the Volturno had all been sacked by them. To no purpose had Pope Stephen (V.) VI. brought about an attack on them. Equally fruitless was the assault conducted in 903 by Atenulf I., prince of Capua. The Saracens replied by desolating the patrimony of Silva Candida.

Urged on as much by indignation against the people of Gaeta, who had basely allied themselves with the enemies of Christendom, as by hatred of the Saracens themselves, Atenulf2 had already been endeavouring,before the accession of John X., to obtain the aid of the Greek Emperor Leo against the infidels. Accordingly, when the Pope consulted him as to what was best to be done against them, he bade him seek help from Byzantium, and from Camerino and Spoleto. u If we conquer," he concluded, "let the victory be imputed to God and not to our numbers. If we are defeated, let our discomfiture be set down to our sins, but not to our want of effort." :*

1 The mom Garlianus, says Gay {Ultalie mirid., p. 155 n.), must be identified with "monte d'Argento1' or castrum Argenti near the mouth of the river.

2 To him and to his son Landulf, Fedele would assign the lion's share in the formation of the league against the Saracens.

1 Liut., Antap.y ii. 51.

JOHN x. 155

John took the proffered advice, and vigorously seconded the efforts of the princes of Capua. His legates were dispatched in all directions. Ships were asked from Con- stantinople ! to prevent aid from coming to the infidels by sea ; and, realising the importance of deepening the idea of Christian unity, the Pope sent, with many presents, legates to Berenger to offer him the imperial crown 2 in exchange for his help. Where John VIII. failed, John X. succeeded. A Christian league was formed. Owing especially to the diplomatic address of the Greek Admiral Picingli, even the various petty princes of southern Italy for once acted in harmony. With the forces of King Berenger, i.e., with the troops of the northern parts of Italy, and with those of the south, and supported by the Greek fleet, the Pope took the field in person, along with the Marquis Alberic I., in the spring of 915. After some preliminary engagements at Baccano and at Trevi, the Saracens were driven to their fastnesses on the Garigliano. A three months' blockade ensued.- At the end of that period, reduced to despair by hunger, the Saracens, burning their homes behind them, endeavoured to cut their way through their besiegers. Animated by the presence of the Pope, who freely exposed his person,3 the allies met them with the greatest courage, pursued those who succeeded in cutting their way through the Christian lines, " and in this way, by

1 Liut, Ant.) ii., 49 f.

2 Paneg. Berengar.^ 1. iv., line 95 ff. : —

" Dona duci (Berenger) mittit, .... Quo memor extremi tribuat sua jura diei Romanis ....

Imperii sumturus eo pro munere sertum ; Solus et occiduo Caesar vocitandus in Orbe."

3 Writing to Herimann, archbishop of Cologne, John told him : " Saracenos, qui 60 jam annis terram Romanam vastassent .... dissipatos esse, se ipsum corpusque suum opponendo et secunda vice per se ipsum prcelium ineundo." Jaffe, 3556.

156 JOHN X.

the help and mercy of God, utterly eradicated them from those parts in the year of our Lord's incarnation, 915, the third indiction in the month of August."1 For this victory the Pope had to pay, just as his namesake John VIII. had had to do on a similar occasion. The duke of Gaeta was induced to abandon his Saracen allies only on condition that the grant of Traetto, etc., made him by John VIII., was secured to him by John X.2 At any rate, it was confirmed to him, " because, for the love of the Christian faith, he had fought hard to drive the Saracens from all the territory of the apostles." For long years after, the place where this most important engagement was fought was known as * The Field of Battle " ; and an extant inscription shows that local buildings served for a consider- able time to keep fresh the memory of the happy day when the Saracens were expelled from their fortress on the Garigliano.

Although this campaign of John is called by Muratori " a glorious undertaking," the appearance of the " Vicar of Christ, the Pacific," at the head of an army seems to have shocked that pious and learned ecclesiastic. For our own part, however, remembering that our Lord was not always " The Pacific," but that He could become angry, make a

1 Leo Ost., C/iron. Cas.y i. 52. Fedele has certainly proved that 915 and not 916 is the correct date of the battle. Gregorovius, Rome, iii. 267, n. 2, is mistaken when he refers to John X. the words in the Chron. Salernit., c. 143. They refer to the yo uthful John XII.

-' This is deduced from Leo Ost., ft, ii. 35, and the decree of the Placitum, "apud Argenteum Castrum," near Traetto, in 1014, which quoted confusedly grants of John VIII, John X., and Benedict IV., on the strength of which the dukes of Gaeta had tried to encroach on the domains of the monastery of Monte Cassino. See the decree, already often quoted, in Liverani, iv., 33 f. To the bull of John VIII. are appended details and signatures from that of John X. Liverani's account of the campaign against the Saracens is unfortunately marred by his having freely used the Chronic. Due. NeapoL, now recognised as a forgery of its editor, Pratilli.

JOHN X. 157

scourge, and drive men before Him by means of it, we are content to regard the warlike achievements of John as a " glorious undertaking," simply and unreservedly. Good work had to be done, and John did it. The influence of the Pope alone was then powerful enough to bring together into harmony, even for a short space, the discordant elements which then composed the ruling powers in Italy. What his influence alone could bring together, his presence alone could keep together. John's appearance in the Christian camp on the Garigliano gave courage to the soldiers and unity to their leaders. And this was the view of his action which Rome took of his deeds at the time. Benedict of Soracte tells us of the magnificent triumphal reception accorded by the Romans to the victorious pontiff and to the Marquis Alberic, who had fought against the Saracens "like the bravest of lions." Be all this as it may, an act of no little importance, for the advancement of the cause of law and order in Italy, had been accomplished by John X. In proceeding to place the imperial crown on the brow of King Berenger, the same sacred cause was again furthered by him.

Blind, and so confined to his ancestral kingdom, it was Corona- obviously impossible that Louis of Provence could exert Berenger,

T~)pc QIC

any influence which would make for the regeneration of the peninsula. The only man in it calculated, from his power and nationality, to command any respect at this period was King Berenger. To him, then, had John naturally turned. And though such historical records as we possess have not left us any precise account of the share that Berenger had in the league against the Saracens, it cannot be doubted that he did promote its ends, and that he received the imperial crown as the promised reward of his services. The details of his coronation are furnished

158 JOHN X.

us by his anonymous panegyrist.1 With such troops as he could muster, Berenger marched to Rome. Great was the joy of the populace when the king's heralds announced his approach. Looking forward to an ameliora- tion of the existing state of things, the people streamed forth to meet and welcome the king, who, as usual, passing beneath the Mons Gaudii, or Monte Mario, encamped in the Neronian Field, about a mile from Rome. Thither to greet him proceeded the " Senate " and the different " Scholae " of the foreigners, all chanting the usual " laudes," and bearing banners ornamented with the heads of eagles, lions, wolves, and dragons. Each nation acclaimed the emperor-elect in its own language. First the Romans, then the Greeks (Dcedaleis Grains sequitur landare loquelis), and then the other nationalities in order. The procession was closed by the son "of the consul (Theophylact)," and by the brother (Peter) "of the Apos- tolicus" (John X.), who, in token of submission, kissed the feet of the king. Riding on one of the Pope's horses, Berenger advanced through the surging masses of the people anxious to see the new emperor to the vestibule of St. Peter's, where at the top of the steps the Pope was awaiting him. Dismounting from his horse, Berenger as- cended the steps with no little difficulty, so demonstrative in its greetings was the pressing crowd. After he had been greeted by the Pope with kiss and hand-shake, both stood before the gates of the basilica, while Berenger renewed all the promises made by his imperial predecessors to the Roman See.2 The gates were then thrown open, and, as the Pope and the king entered the basilica, the clergy intoned the " laudes" in their honour. After praying before the shrine

1 Ap. R. I. SS., II., p. i. p. 406 f. ; or ap. M.G. PP., iv.

2 /£. " . . . . ctenim se cuncta loco vovet ultro daturum,

Qu?e prius almifici sacris cessere tyranni."

JOHN X. 159

of St. Peter, the Pope and the king adjourned to the palace adjoining the basilica. On the following Sunday,1 probably December 3, amid the excited shouts of an easily aroused crowd, who called on the Pope " by the chains of the Master (St. Peter)" not to delay the coronation, Berenger was anointed and crowned. Again were raised the " laudes," praying for long life for the new emperor, and that he might have strength to free the empire from the burdens under which it was groaning.

" . . . . Imperiumque gravi sub pondere pressum Erigat."

But for the evil times, sighs the panegyrist of Berenger, John and Berenger might have been Sylvester and Con- stantine the Great.

The donations of previous emperors to the See of Peter were then confirmed by Berenger, and forbidden to be alienated ; while, in accordance with precedent, no small sum of money was distributed among the people.

But the work accomplished by John, which might have The been productive of so much good for Italy, was destined iSSSf, not to last. As we have frequently remarked before, while 922' at this period the great nobles of Italy were thinking of nothing but their own personal gain, only the Popes had at heart the advantage of the whole country. " It must candidly be admitted," says Gregorovius,2 writing of this

1 It used to be thought that the words of the poet, which describe the emperor's coronation as taking place on the day on which our Lord rose again from the dead, necessarily referred to Easter Sunday. Extant diplomas (ap. Gregorovius, Liverani, etc.), which show that Berenger was emperor in December 915, prove that the poet merely meant to designate the first day of the week. A charter of Berenger, published by Muratori, Annal.,915, shows him at Lucca on November 10. It sets forth that he was marching to Rome " pro timore Dei, et statum omniumque sanctarum Dei ecclesiarum electorum Populo hie Italicis abitantibus, animaeque suae mercedem justitiam adimplendam," etc.

2 Rome, iii. 272.

160 JOHN X.

period, "that during a long period the Papacy was the sole power in Italy, even in a political aspect, and that in its absence the country would have sunk into yet deeper distress." In the present case, finding that in Berenger they would soon have a master, Adalbert, marquis of Ivrea, Berenger's own son-in-law, Odelricus, count of the palace, Lambert, archbishop of Milan, and others conspired against the emperor, and summoned to the throne of Italy Rodolf II., king of Transjurane Burgundy.1 He came at the end of 921 or at the beginning of 922 ; and about the same time too came the dread Hungarians.2 Whether summoned by Berenger or used by him as they chanced to be in Italy, the Hungarians, or some of them, fought for the emperor. The condition of Italy may be more easily imagined than described. Despite his Hungarians, the tide of war set in steadily against Berenger, and in the midst of it he fell by the knife of an assassin (March 924).

But, true to their plan of keeping themselves independent, while they played off one foreign ruler against another, certain nobles now invited into Italy Hugh, king of Provence, the successor of Louis the Blind, and the grandson of Lothair II. by his mistress Waldrada. This time the fickle jade Fortune turned against Rodolf, and he had to return to his ancestral kingdom (926). In the summer of the same year, u God, whose will it was that Hugo should reign in Italy, brought him by favouring gales to Pisa," according to the expression3 of his prot£g£ Liutprand. This unworthy monarch, who showed that he had fully

1 Liutprand, Ant., ii., c. 57 f, ed. Diim.

2 Ann. Benev., ann. 922, cited ib. Cf. Catal. Comitum Capita (ap. \f. G. SS. Langob., p. 500) : " Quarto die stante mense Feb. adventus Ungrorurn in Apuliam, indictione 10," i.e., Feb. 4, 922. Frodoard, Ann., 922, ascribes the advent of the Hungarians to the invitation of Berenger.

3 Ant., iii. 16.

JOHN X. l6l

inherited all his grandfather's lust, as even Liutprand1 allows, and whom Muratori stigmatises as " un picciolo Tiberio, una solennissima volpe, ed un vero ipocrita," is set down by the former as a man of equal learning and bravery, of no less boldness than skill, as a man who honoured God and those who loved religion, who looked carefully after the poor, who was eager for the honour of the Church and religion, and who loved and honoured learned men.

It would seem that John had been largely instrumental in bringing Hugo into Italy. Not only does Frodoard say 2 that it was arranged at Rome that Hugo should be king of Italy, but the Pope's envoy was among the first to welcome him at Pisa. And soon after he had been acknowledged king of Italy at Pavia, he had an interview with John at Mantua, and concluded some treaty with him.3 The terms of the agreement are not known, but it has been conjectured that John - stipulated for aid against the growing power of Marozia. If so, it will be seen that he did not get it.

So far, the events themselves and their sequence are Troubles certain. We have now to treat of a state of things of which some of the issues are known with certainty, but not the events that led to them. Being in the dark, we can but walk carefully, feeling our way. In 925 died Alberic I. (the Upstart) ; and, to strengthen her position, his widow Marozia married Guido (Wido or Guy), marquis of Tuscany. Later writers, such as the author of the Greek chronicle of the Popes, Martinus Polonus, and other thirteenth century authors, speak of a difference having

1 Ant, iii., 19: "Qui etsi tot virtutibus clarebat, mulierum tamen illecebris eas fedabat."

2 AnnaL, 926 : " Hugo rex Romce super Italiam constituitur."

3 Liut., ib., 17.

VOL. IV. II

1 62 JOHN X.

arisen between Alberic and the Pope. They are so far in harmony with the contemporary evidence of Benedict of Soracte that what he attributes to Peter, the Pope's brother, they attribute to Alberic. Later writers then, as confusing Alberic with Peter, had better be left aside, and the narratives of Frodoard, Benedict, and Liutprand followed. Alberic, who had fought and triumphed side by side with the Pope, we therefore suppose remained true to him. After his death, and her marriage with Guido, the ambition of Marozia had freer scope. A struggle for power soon commenced between the newly married pair and the Pope.1 They first directed their hostilities against John's brother Peter. Compelled to fly the city, Peter entrenched himself in Horta, and invoked the aid of some of the bands of Hungarians, who, as we have seen, had as early as 922 penetrated as far as Apulia. And it is precisely in this year (926) that Romuald of Salerno, only a twelfth century writer, it is true, chronicles 2 the presence of Hungarians in the neighbourhood of Rome. Deposition At length, presuming, no doubt, that the terrible ravages of John x, of the Hungarians, who had laid waste the whole of £a8.Une Tuscany with fire and sword, had sufficiently tamed its marquis and his wife, Peter returned to Rome. But Guido was as crafty as his half-brother, King Hugo. He con- trived secretly to collect a body of troops, and with them made an attack (928) on the Lateran palace when Peter

1 " Orta est intentio inter matrcm Alberici et papa," Bened., c. 29. Frodoard, Ann., 928 and 9, speaks of the hostile acts of Guido and Marozia against John ; and Liutprand says, Ant., iii. 43 ■ "Wido .... cum Marocia uxore sua de Johannis papae dejectione cepit vehementer tractare, atque hoc propter invidiam quam Petro fratri papae habebant."

2 Chron., 926: "Campaniam ingressi (Ungri), non modicam ipsius provincial partem igni ac direptioni dederunt." Ap. R. I. SS., vii. 162.

JOHN X. 163

was off his guard, and had but few soldiers with him.1 He was cut to pieces before his brother's eyes, while John him- self was thrust into a dungeon. How long he lingered in prison, or how exactly he died, cannot be stated with any certainty. The most trustworthy of our authorities, Frodoard of Rheims, makes him live on in prison till the following year (929), where he died, according to the general belief, from grief. " Pope John," he records, " was deprived of his temporal authority (principatus) by a certain powerful woman2 named Marozia, and, whilst confined in prison, died as some say by violence, but according to the general opinion from grief (929)." Benedict of Soracte also implies that John did not lose his life by any act of violence. Liutprand, the Annals of Beneventum,3 and other authorities of less weight assert that John was either choked or suffocated with a pillow. According to a tradition, noted by Liverani,4 John was seized whilst say- ing Mass, was hurried off to precipitous Veroli, nearly midway between Frosinone and Sora, and incarcerated in a cruel dungeon in the castle of St. Leucius. A movement of the people in the Pope's favour caused his enemies to take him back to Rome and put him to death. While therefore it is probable that John X. died a natural death, it is possible in his case, as in that

1 " Contigit itaque Petro Romae degente, Widonem multos habuisse clam milites congregatos. Cumque die quadam papa cum fratre paucisque aliis in Lateranensi palatio esset, Widonis et Marociae super eos milites irruentes, Petrum .... interfecerunt." Liut., Ant, iii. 43. Cf. Benedict, ib. ; and Frodoard, who says, ad. ann. 928, " Missus Heriberti comitis Roma revertitur, nuntians Johannem papam a Widone .... propter simultatem quandam inter illos exortam re- trusum in carcerem."

2 Cf the verses of Frodoard, which will be quoted later as John's epitaph ; and also his verses on John XI. : " Decimum sub claustra Joannem quae dederat."

3 M. G. SS., iii. 175, " In castro (Angeli) jugulatus."

4 P- 535 f-

1 64 JOHN X.

of his great namesake John VIII., that he died by violence.

The circumstances attending the death of John X. show us in the first place that Hugo, in whom the Pope seems to have placed hopes, was unable or unwilling to help him, and that we have certainly reached the times spoken of by Bishop Bonizo of Sutri (fiocji) in his hopelessly con- fused jottings l regarding the Popes of the tenth century, when " the Roman nobles seized the supreme civil power," and the days over which the monk Benedict laments that Rome had fallen beneath the yoke of women.

Whilst all these important political events, which terminated so disastrously for him, were in progress, John was watchfully attending to matters ecclesiastical both in the East and West. What he accomplished for the peace of the Church of Constantinople has been already narrated.2 But not with the Greeks only had he dealings in the east of Europe. He was in communication with the Slavs also, though at what period of his pontificate is not known with certainty. However, if John never thought of them before, he must have done so during the last two dread years of his pontificate; for, if the so-called Lupus Protospata3 and Romuald of Salerno have not made any mistake, the south of Italy was harried in the year 926 not only by Greeks, Saracens, and Hungarians, but also by Slavs.

1 Published by Mai, Nova Pat. Bib., vii., p. 45, and by Duchesne, L. P., ii., and Watterich, i. uEt de Joanne Tusculano, cujus temporibus Romani capitanei patriciatus sibi tyrannidem vindicavere." This notice strictly refers to the times of a later Pope John ; to a John of the house of Tusculum.

2 See the Life of Sergius III.

3 A writer of the eleventh century. His Chronicle has been re- printed from M. G. SS., v., in P. L., t. 155. He draws largely from the Annals of Bari, which (ib.) say : " Comprendit Michael, Rex Sclavorum civitatem Sipontum mense Julio, die. S. Felicitatis, sec. feria, ind. 1 5. July 10, 926."

JOHN X. 165

Despite the prohibition of Stephen (V). VI. and of later Daimatia

Conflict

pontiffs, the Slavonic tongue continued to be used in the between Mass and the Liturgy of the Church generally, not only and among the more Eastern Slavs under the influence of the ntes. Church of Constantinople, but also among those of Daimatia, where the Latin rite had long been in more or less general use. SS. Cyril and Methodius had introduced the use of the Slavonic liturgy among them because, as they told Pope Hadrian, they found them so utterly rude. Very wisely, then, had their action been approved by Hadrian II. and John VIII. These pontiffs naturally concluded that it was not absolutely necessary that Mass should be said in Latin or Greek, and that it would be a mistake to alienate men from the Church for the sake of something which was not essential. Other Popes, how- ever, with less wisdom it would seem, did not take the view of Hadrian and John VIII. Of a surety, in order to draw closer the bonds of unity, it is desirable that the great sacrifice of the New Law should be offered up every- where in the same language ; and so, no doubt, it was the proper thing for John X. to prevent the Slav liturgy from replacing the Latin without reason. To this end, in response to a request from the civil and ecclesiastical authorities of the country,1 he sent two bishops into Daimatia, and with them various letters. The first2 (c. 924) was addressed "to our brother John, archbishop of Salona (Spalatro), and to all his suffragans." In it John expressed his astonishment that they had so long neglected to visit the Roman Church, the rock of the faith ; and said he had learnt with sorrow that a

1 See the acts of the council of Spalatro.

2 No. 24, ap. Liverani, iv. ; or ap. Racki, Documenta hist. Chroaticce periodum antiqua7n (till the twelfth century) ilhistrantia. Agram, 1877, p. 188. In the acts of the council of Spalatro (924), Tamislaus is called "king of Croatia and Daimatia."

166 JOHN X.

doctrine which was not contained in Holy Writ, but in Methodius, was being preached in their province. He ex- horted them boldly to correct "throughout the Slavonic land " what stood in need of amendment, but in such a way that they presumed not to deviate from the doctrine of his envoys, and he told them to follow the custom of the Roman Church, and say Mass in Latin, because a good son should speak as his father dictated ; and, as the Slavs are " most special sons of the Holy Roman Church," they must remain in the doctrine of their mother. Another letter1 to the same effect was addressed to Tamislaus, king of Croatia, and to Michael, most excellent duke of Zachulmia (Herzegovina), to our most reverend brother John, archbishop of the most holy Church of Salona, to all his suffragans, to all the Zupans, and to all the priests and people throughout Sclavonia and Dalmatia. In addition to repeating what he had already said to the archbishop, the Pope gave them an important piece of instruction when he begged them to have their children trained in the science of God from their very tenderest years, so that by their exhortations they might themselves be drawn away from the allurements of sin.

The Pope's words were not without their effect. A council was assembled at Salona. Besides vindicating the primacy of Dalmatia and Croatia for the bishop of Salona, and passing various disciplinary canons,2 the synod forbade the ordination of anyone ignorant of Latin, and forbade Mass to be said in Sclavonic, except in case of a dearth of priests, and with leave from the Roman pontiff. In con- clusion, the assembled bishops decided that all the decrees they had drawn up were to be sent to Rome for the con- firmation of the Pope, in accordance with the ancient

1 Liverani, No. 25, or Ra£ki, I.e., p. 187. 1 No. 29, ap. Liverani ; or KaCki, p. 190.

JOHN X. 167

custom of the Church in their country.1 In due course John wrote back 2 to inform the Dalmatian bishops that he confirmed " whatever our legates have with you decreed in synod," with one exception. This had reference to the jurisdiction of Spalatro over the Croatian bishop of Nona.3 The council had asserted that jurisdiction (can. 11), and Nona had appealed to Rome. John reserved to himself the decision of the question of jurisdiction, and summoned the parties to Rome. No doubt in this matter of the dependence of the Croats, through their bishop, on the archbishop of Spalatro, political questions were involved. However, in any case, through the contumacy of Gregory of Nona, as Liverani supposes,4 the disputants did not go to Rome. Death prevented John X. from completely finishing the affair; but he lived long enough to send fresh letters (now lost) and more legates to settle it. The new embassy, of which Bishop Madalbert was the head, first made its way to Bulgaria to negotiate a peace between the Croats and Bulgarians. When this task had been suc- cessfully accomplished, Madalbert presided at a synod in Spalatro (926-927), at which, besides various bishops, the king of Croatia and his nobles were also present. After a careful examination of the ancient customs of the province, it was decided that Spalatro must keep the primacy ; but that, as of old there used not to be a bishop in Nona, Gregory might select one of those ancient sees, like Scodra, where there used to be a bishop, and preside over it. Then, with a grim humour which is not often found in synodal decrees, the council further decided that if Gregory was

1 Id., " Quatenus divinitus antiquae religionis dogma in ecclesiis Dalmatiarum arbitro summi pontificis universa praelibata sortirentur."

2 lb., 30.

3 The ancient ^nonae, in Slavonic Nin, some ten miles north of Zara.

4 ii. 496 f.

1 68 JOHN X.

enamoured of the burden of the episcopate, and was not content with one diocese, he might take two more of the extinct dioceses "to his own loss and theirs," as the difficulties of the country prevented easy communication between its parts.

These decisions were first solemnly confirmed by Madalbert1 and then by John's successor. Perhaps the only document of Leo VI. which has come down to us is the one in which he announces that he has granted the pallium to Archbishop John, orders all the bishops of Dalmatia to obey him, and bids Nona to be content with Scodra, and the other bishops to confine themselves to the limits of their dioceses.2

But the legates of John X. were seen not only among the southern Slavs. They were to be found among a people (the Bulgarians), Slav in fact if not in name, whose power at this period stretched almost to the walls of Constantinople. When John became Pope, the Bulgarians, under their great Tsar Simeon (892-927), the younger son of Bogoris the correspondent of Nicholas I., reached the height of their power. A man of great ambition, Simeon was ever striving to increase his sway. And as he was ever at war with Constantinople, he caused the Bulgarians to renounce spiritual obedience to its patriarch, and began merely for his own ends to make overtures to Rome. John responded, and exerted himself in the first place to try to bring about peace between the Bulgarians and the Eastern empire. When he sent bishops Theophylact and Carus to bring the Greek Church to peace on the " fourth-marriage " question, he gave them

1 See the acts of this synod, ap. Ra£ki, p. 194 f. " Madalbertus . . . . omnia .... sancivit .... (et) cuncta .... Romano pontifici fuerint praesentata, et ab eo divina auctoritate et S. Petri per suas litteras et palii missionem confirmata.

2 RaCki, p. 196 ; Jaflfe, 3579 (2742).

JOHN X. 169

instructions to visit Simeon on their return. Much of this is made known to us by a most interesting letter of the patriarch, Nicholas I., to " Prince Simeon." This letter also shows the respectful views — views we have already noted — entertained, at times at least, by Nicholas on the position of the Pope in the Universal Church. After complaining that Simeon had ceased to display towards him proper filial obedience, the patriarch went on x to say that he was impelled to approach him again not only by his former love for him, but also by the authority of the Pope, which is very weighty among all good men and whom it is wrong not to obey. When the Pope had heard of the sufferings of the people of the empire, he sent Theophylact and Carus, two bishops, to induce you (Simeon) to make peace, or, if you refused, to excommuni- cate you. He (the patriarch) had not sent the bishops to him, because report had it that he was wont to maltreat even ambassadors. He had, therefore, persuaded the legates to stop with him, and had forwarded him the Pope's letters, which he trusted Simeon would obey. u For do not imagine that you can behave towards the Roman pontiff in the same contemptuous manner as you have behaved towards me." Simeon was then assured that the Princes of the Apostles regarded injuries done to the Pope as done to themselves, and reminded him that they had inflicted death on Ananias and Sapphira, and blindness on Elymas. Peace was concluded between the Bulgarians and the Eastern empire in November 932. "One of the stipula- tions of the treaty was the public acknowledgment of the independence of the Bulgarian Church, and the official

1 Ap. Liverani, iv., No. 19, ad an. 921-3. " Hinc fit, ut cum priscus ille, quo te sum prosectus, amor, turn etiam SS. Romani papae, cui minime parere, nefas, gravis apud bonos omnes auctoritas, me in lacrymas et preces ire, iterum impellat." This letter may be read in the original Greek (ep. 28), ap. P.G., t. III.

170 JOHN X.

recognition of Damian, archbishop of Dorostylon, as Patriarch of Bulgaria both by the emperor and the Patriarch of Constantinople." x What influence the letters of the Pope may have had in promoting this useful peace it is impossible to say, but they show how utterly baseless was the supposition, noted by Finlay,2 that Simeon formed " an alliance with the Pope, who sent him a royal crown to reward his hostilities against the Byzantine empire and Church." We have recorded elsewhere3 what evidence there is that royal crowns were sent to the Bulgarian rulers Simeon, Peter, and Samuel by the Popes about this period. Whether they ever were sent or not, they were never bestowed as rewards for their barbarous acts of war.

The Bulgarian Tsar Peter (927-968), however, who, like his father the great Tsar Simeon, is presumed to have been crowned by the Pope, is said 5 to have again become subject to Rome, along with his autocephalous patriarch, in 967. In any case, Greek influence resumed its sway in Bulgaria after the fall of the first Bulgarian empire in the beginning of the eleventh century.

But Theophylactus and Carus were not the only legates sent by John to the Bulgarians. Negotiations between

1 Finlay, The Byzantine Empire, p. 369, n. 2. Cf. d'Avril, Bulgarie chrctienne, p. 14. Finlay adds : "The patriarchal dignity in Bulgaria was abolished by John I. (Zimiskes) when he conquered the country in 972. The Greek writers err, therefore, in asserting that the head of the Bulgarian Church was never officially recognised as a patriarch by the Church of Constantinople." For a brief season, under another great Tsar, Samuel (tioi4), the Bulgarian Church again asserted its inde- pendence of Constantinople. After the fall of its first Empire, Bulgaria was under Greek supremacy both in Church and State from 1018 to 1 186.

■ lb.

L iii. p. 253 of this work. Cf. Theiner, Vet. Afon. Slavorum /, i., p. 15 f. ; and 23-25.

♦ d Avril, I.e.

JOHN X. 171

the Pope and Simeon continued. A Bulgarian envoy appeared in Rome, and returned to his master with Bishop Madalbert as the Pope's legate. Again the work of the Pope was peace. The exertions of Madalbert put an end to the war which was being waged between the Bulgarians and the Croats.1 The deaths both of John X. and the Tsar Simeon, within a few months of each other, closed negotiations between them.

While Franks, Germans, Slavs, Bulgarians, and Greeks Germany. were tossing the torch of battle from one end of Europe to of Aitheim, the other, from West to East and East to West, and striving to sever with the sword every bond that bound them together, there was, fortunately for the future, one chain that linked them at least indirectly together. One and all of them turned with hope to Rome. And among them all went the legates of John, preaching the blessings of peace and order. As among the eastern peoples of Europe, so among the western were to be found envoys from Rome. And if from Germany there was soon to come redemption, dearly bought it is true, but still redemption for the Papacy, so now we find the Papacy itself helping to fashion its redeemer. The troubles of Germany had not ended with the death of Louis the Child and the accession of the bold and energetic Conrad I. of Franconia (91 1-91 8). He had to face serious difficulties at home and abroad. Though king in name, he was in fact hardly more than ruler of Franconia, hardly more powerful than the dukes of Saxony, Swabia, and Bavaria, which with Franconia itself and Lorraine or Lotharingia constituted Germany. He was in perpetual conflict with the young Duke Arnulf of Bavaria and his two uncles Erchanger and Berthold. To add to his difficulties Henry, duke of the Saxons, who was destined

1 Cf. Farlati, lllyricum Sacrum, iii. 103 rT., cited ap. Liverani, ii. 497 ff. ; or Racki, I.e., pp., 194-5.

172 JOHN X.

to succeed him, abandoned him, and went over to one of his external foes, Charles the Simple. Charles, as a descendant of the Carolingian emperors by the male line, was indignant that he had not been chosen to succeed Louis, but had been rejected for one connected with them only on the female side. He seized Lorraine by force of arms, perhaps invited so to do by its nobles.1 Conrad's rivals, quite in the selfish style of those times, brought another external foe down upon him, viz. the terrible Hungarians. Amidst all these troubles the clergy stood by Conrad ; and cruelly did many of them suffer for their loyalty. Their knowledge of ecclesiastical unity, their own connection with the centre of religious unity, naturally made them desire a national unity. To further this end, they met together at Altheim (now Hohenaltheim) in September 916, "in presence of Peter, bishop of Horta and apocrisiarius of the Pope," as the preface of the acts of the council declares.2 The preface went on to say : "The Pope's legate has been sent to destroy the seed sown in our country by the devil, and to make head against the machinations of wicked men. ... He has laid before us a letter of exhortation sent us by the Pope. This we received with all due respect, and after tearfully recog- nising our faults and our unworthiness, we have, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, drawn up the following decrees for our own amendment and that of our people." Bishops, according to them, were to show themselves the salt of the earth, and devote themselves to preaching. Both clergy and laity were to take care to have no relations with excommuni- cated persons. The clergy are not to be judged by laymen. Whoever is condemned by the bishops of the province can

1 Cf. Eckel, Charles le Simple, ch. iv.

2 Af- G- LLn >i> P. 554 £ ; or Liverani, iv., No. 6 ; Hefele, Cone, vi. 154 U "Generalis synodus apud Altheim."

JOHN X. 173

appeal to Rome,1 in accordance with the law from the earliest times. After the publication of these and other similar decrees regarding clerical and general discipline, the bishops and clergy, with the concurrence of the people, passed resolutions condemnatory of those who swore loyalty to the king with their lips only, and affirmed their own devoted attachment to their sovereign. Erchanger and his accomplices, who have dared to act against their king, the anointed of the Lord, and treacherously to seize Bishop Salomon, must do penance in a monastery for the rest of their lives. The followers of Erchanger and the other traitors, who, summoned to the synod, did not come, were commanded, if they would avoid the excommunication decreed against them in the Pope's letter, to go to their own bishops, and accept from them the penance prescribed by the synod. The bishops of Saxony, rebellious like their duke, did not come to the synod when summoned. If they do not obey a second summons to a council at Mayence, the legate and the synod, " by apostolic authority," forbid them to say Mass until they have justified themselves before the Pope at Rome (can. 30). The synod treated (can. 29) in the same way Richevin, bishop of Strasburg, on the ground of his being an intruder into that see. It has been suggested, with no small degree of probability, that Richevin's only crime was that he was devoted to the interests of Charles the Simple in Lorraine, and so hostile to Conrad. John X., at any rate, was a loyal supporter of Conrad, and evidently did all he could to further the formation of a strong monarchy in Germany.

Many of John's letters are addressed to Herimann, Charles the archbishop of Cologne, a city at this period in the power 92™.pe'

1 " Constitutum liquet a tempore app. et deinceps placuit, ut accusa- tus vel judicatus a comprovincialibus in aliqua causa episcopis, licenter appellet et adeat apostol. sedis pontificem." Can. 13.

174 J°HN x-

of Charles the Simple. Several of them contain replies to various moral difficulties which the archbishop had proposed to him, while others were on the subject of the bishopric of Liege — a subject quite on the same lines with that of Strasburg, and connected with intrigues between the Franks and the Germans for the possession of Lorraine. In May 920, Stephen, bishop of Liege, breathed his last, and Charles, exercising a right sanctioned at least by ancient custom, nominated as his successor Hilduin, a priest of that church. As far as he himself was concerned, Charles seems to have made a bad selection. Hilduin straightway allied himself with Gilbert, duke of Lorraine, who was in open rebellion against him. Naturally indignant, the Frankish king cancelled the appointment of Hilduin, and nominated Richer, abbot of Priim and successor of the chronicler Regino. Supported, however, not only by Gilbert but also, as Charles declared, by Henry I., the Fowler, the successor of Conrad,1 Hilduin forced Herimann, under threat of loss of life and property, to consecrate him ; and, again according to the capitulary of Charles, rewarded his supporters from the plunder of churches. The Frankish king and Richer then turned to the Pope. Herimann was soon (921) in re- ceipt of a letter2 from the Pope, in which he was blamed for acting as he did through fear, " as ancient custom " required that no one except the king should nominate a bishop for any diocese — a custom resting "on the authority of our predecessors." The archbishop, with both Hilduin and Richer, was summoned to Rome, and in the interim the new bishop was suspended from saying Mass. Charles was also informed of what the Pope had done, and of the

1 Cf. Capit. of Charles, ap. Boretius, ii., p. 378. "Egit (Hilduinus; ut Hcrimannus Agrippinae civitatis archiepiscopus per violentiam Heinrici .... ilium in pontificem consecraret."

2 Liverani, iv., Nos. 15, 16.

JOHN X. 175

good offices used in his behalf by the Emperor Berenger. Richer (922) not only won his case, but was consecrated l by the Pope himself, while his rival was excommunicated. However anxious John may have been for a powerful German monarchy, he would not have its power increased at the expense of the king of the Franks. In fact, in the midst of all his troubles it was only on John X. that Charles could rely.

We have already seen how Charles began to reign in Charles the face of an opposition from Eudes, count of Paris. In this treacher- very year (922) he had to fight for his crown against Robert, seized, 923. the brother of Eudes, whom some rebels had caused to be crowned king. Though Robert lost his usurped crown with his life in 923, the troubles of Charles were not over. Raoul or Rodolf, duke of Burgundy and brother-in-law of Robert, was called to succeed him. In these confused and wretched times no king could rely upon any one. Charles was treacherously seized (923) by a relation, Heribert, count of Vermandois, and kept under restraint till his death (929), in order that Heribert might have a weapon with which, if necessary, to fight Rodolf, whom he had him- self helped to the throne. Against the treason of Heribert John alone raised his voice. He threatened the count with excommunication unless he restored Charles to freedom. But with such men as he had to deal with John could effect little, and had to be content with the assurance of Heribert that he would do his best to fulfil the Pope's wishes,2 but that he himself had not conspired against

1 Folcuini, Gest. abb. Lob. Cf. Frodoard, Ann., 920, 22 ; Richer, Hist., i. 22, 25.

2 Frod., Ann., 923 and 8 ; Richer, i., 47 and 54. I quote Waitz's re- print from M. G. SS., iii. It may here be noted that the authority of Richer, who was a monk of Rheims, who wrote at the very end of the tenth century, is debatable ground. To most French authors— e.g. Masson, The Chroniclers of Europe : France, p. 54 — he is well informed

176 JOHN X.

the king, though he had had to yield to circumstances. With these written assurances Heribert sent envoys to Rome begging the Pope to order the restitution of Charles. The envoys found John in the same straits as they had left Charles, i.e., in the power of an enemy, he boy Whilst these negotiations were in progress, the archi- Rheims.' episcopal see of Rheims became vacant, and Heribert forced the election to it of his son Hugh, a child of five years old. Among those who suffered in their goods or bodies for opposing this scandalous affair was our worthy historian Frodoard. Whether it was because John hoped to get some influence over the ruffian, and so move him to release his king, or because he thought that opposition would only breed greater evils, he at any rate confirmed the child's election. But, to minimise the mischief as far as he could, he entrusted the spiritual management of the diocese to the bishop of Soissons till the child was anything like old enough to be consecrated. When Heribert had thus gained his will, he flouted both Pope and king, bestowed the spiritual administration on another bishopaltogether.and did with the temporalities of the see just whatever he had a mind to do.1 We shall hear of Hugh of Vermandois again. However, not all the great men among the Franks were unfaithful to God, or traitors to their king. Of the loyal few was Heriveus, archbishop of Rheims, successor of the

and honest, while German writers regard his Historia Francorum, from 887 to 998, as inaccurate and as written under the influence of a false patriotism. An English writer {English Hist. Rev., 1900, p. 561) goes so far as to compare him with Dudo, and believes that the grain of truth will never be extracted from his writings unless new material comes to light. Lot (Les derniers Carolingicns, p. xvii.), however, is probably right in concluding that from 970, when he becomes original, — Msa chronique est une source precieuse."

1 Frod., Hist. Rem., iv. 20 f. Heribert gave all to understand that if his son were not elected he would split up the bishopric and give its fragments to foreigners. //'.

JOHN X. 177

murdered Fulk. Not only was he true to Charles to the end, but like a faithful steward he laboured hard for his Divine master among the pagan Normans. Frodoard tells us how " he often held synods with the suffragan bishops of his archdiocese, in which with wisdom and profit he worked for peace, for the spread of the faith of God's Holy Church, and for the well-being of the kingdom of the Franks. Nobly did he toil for the civilisation and con- version of the Normans .... until at length they received the faith of Christ. ... On this matter he was careful to con- sult the Pope of Rome j and on his advice he ever decided what had to be done for their conversion." x There is extant a letter of John X. in reply to some of the difficulties which presented themselves to the mind of the archbishop. He was much perplexed as to how far he ought to treat with rigour those who were constantly relapsing into idolatry. He received in answer (914) the following admirable letter,2 often by mistake assigned to John IX. : — " Your letter has filled me at once with sorrow and with joy. With sorrow at the sufferings you have to endure not only from the pagans, but also from Christians ; with glad- ness at the conversion of the Northmen, who once revelled in human blood, but who now, by your words, rejoice that they are redeemed by the life-giving blood of Christ. For this we thank God, and implore Him to strengthen them in the faith. As to how far, inasmuch as they are uncultured, and but novices in the faith, they are to be subjected to severe canonical penances for their relapsing, killing of priests, and sacrificing to idols, we leave to your judgment to decide, as no one will know better than you the manners

1 " Insuper etiam Romanum pontificem super hujuscemodi negotio consulere studuit. Ad cujus consulta quae circa gentis hujus con- versionem exsequenda forent, insinuare non destitit." Hist. Rem., iv. 14.

2 Liverani, n. 3.

VOL. IV. 12

178 JOHN X.

and customs of this people. You will, of course, understand well enough that it will not be advisable to treat them with the severity required by the canons, lest, thinking they will never be able to bear the unaccustomed burdens, they return to their old errors." No doubt the wise and temperate counsel of the Pope was followed, for the conversion of the Normans seems to have gone steadily forward.

Before proceeding with the narrative of the career of John X., enough has been said, we may note, to justify an adverse criticism of a remark made by Mr. Tout in his admirable little work, The Empire and the Papacy. Speaking of the period between 914 and 960, he remarks: " For more than a generation the Popes had almost ceased to exercise any spiritual influence." No doubt the want of anything like an easily accessible full biography of John X. may excuse Mr. Tout's remark, but it will not justify it, at least for the period during which that pontiff occupied the See of Rome. The Of all the relations of John X. with France, or the land

S°ciuny. of the Franks, certainly not the least important is his con- nection with the famous monastery of Cluny, which was to be one of the most potent of the forces that were to bring about the revival of order, learning, and morality in the eleventh century. A few years before John X. became Pope, William, count of Auvergne and duke of Aquitaine, founded (910) the monastery of Cluny near Macon. This he did, as the charter of its foundation beautifully expresses it,1 first for the love of God, then for the spiritual and temporal welfare of himself, his wife, relations, and dependants, for the preservation of the Catholic faith, and for all the faith- ful. It was to be a refuge for the poor,2 who on leaving

1 Ap. Labbe, ix. 565.

2 lb. " Pr«-ccipimus siquidem, ut maxime illis sit haec nostra donatio ad perpetuum refugium, qui pauperes de sasculo egressi, nihil secum

JOHN X. 179

the world would bring nothing into religion but a good will. It was to be under the special protection of the Pope, who was entreated to be its protector, and to sever from the Church and eternal life such as should usurp its goods. Of the work of reform effected by the Benedictine monastery of Cluny and its dependent houses, it may suffice to state here with Tout : 1 "As ever in the Middle Ages, a new monastic movement heralded in the work of reformation. As the Carolingian reformation is associated with Benedict of Aniane, so is the reformation of the eleventh century with the monks of Cluny." It was to protect the property of this important home of virtue and learning that Pope John wrote2 to King Rodolf, and various bishops and counts. He instructs them to restore to Cluny the property of which Guido, abbot of Gigny, had, pending a judicial sentence, violently possessed himself, and to take under their special protection that monastery which had been placed under the direct jurisdiction of the Holy See.

It is interesting to find that John's patronage was sought by other of Christendom's most famous monasteries not only in Gaul but in Germany (Fulda), Switzerland (St. Gall), and Italy (Subiaco). He even increased the posses- sions of the last-named monastery on condition 3 that each day the monks should repeat the Kyrie eleison and the Christe eleison one hundred times " for the salvation of his soul." From such conditions some argue that the authors of donations of that sort must indeed have felt themselves in need of intercessory prayer. But it must be borne in mind that the strange fact is that it is the good who are anxious to secure prayers for themselves, and not the bad.

praeter bonam voluntatem attulerint, ut nostrum supplementum sit abundantia illorum."

1 The Empire and the Papacy, ch. v., " The Cluniac Reformation."

2 Liv., n. 26. 3 lb., 23.

180 JOHN X.

Hence, from his deed in favour of Subiaco (926), it may be concluded that, at least at this time, John was striving after virtue.

Passing over other relations of John with France, e.g. with Geraldus, the forger of papal letters, we may mention one more of his "confirmations," viz. that in which he grants certain possessions to the bishop of Adria, the town which gave its name to the Adriatic, a few miles north of the point where the Po divides to flow by many mouths into the sea. He also gives him leave to erect a fort "in the place called Rhodige" (which brought the modern city of Rovigo into being), in order to protect his people "both against the pagans and the false Christians."1 Similar permissions which we find granted at this period by kings and bishops were fruitful in great results. They called into existence the walled towns which became centres and strongholds of freedom.

Such intercourse as we know that John X. had with Spain points in the same direction as his grant to Subiaco. It has long been the tradition in Spain that the apostle St. James, known as the Greater, preached for a time in that country, that his sacred remains were brought back there by his disciples after his death, and interred near Iria Flavia in Galicia. Lost sight of in the troubles which fell upon the peninsula in the break-up of the Roman Empire in the West, the saint's relics were discovered about the beginning of the ninth century, in the days of Alfonso II., the Chaste, and of Bishop Theodemir. By the king's orders a small church was built over the body of the apostle, and the episcopal See of Iria was transferred to the place, a few miles from that old city, afterwards known, from the apostle's name (Giacomo Postolo), or from the lights seen where his body was discovered,2 as 1 Liverani, n. 12. 2 Cf. in/ra, under the Life of St. Leo IX.

JOHN X. l8l

Compostela.1 It was by virtue of two bulls 2 of John VI 1 1., addressed to Alfonso III., the Great, that the first sub- stantial church which had been erected there to the apostle was consecrated.3 And thither it was that, in the be- ginning of his pontificate, John X. sent a legate who was the bearer of letters to the saintly bishop of the place, Sisenand. John had heard of his sanctity, and sent to beg his constant prayers to St. James in his behalf.4 Sisenand in return sent a priest to Rome with letters from himself, and letters and presents from King Ordofio II.5

It is said that the Romans were as much astonished at the liturgy followed by the Spanish priest as he was at the one in use amongst them. Returning to Spain with books from Rome, he told what he had seen and heard about the ceremonies of the Mass. The liturgy question was at once investigated in a council, and, while it was decided that the Spanish rite was not out of harmony with the Catholic faith, it was agreed to alter its form of consecration {secreta missce) to that of the Roman liturgy.8 Whatever truth there may be in this story about the liturgy, there is none in the statement put forth and accepted by Burke in his History of Spain (i. 229), by Liverani, etc., that John X. gave at least a qualified approval to the so-called Mozarabic liturgy (924). This assertion, as Hefele points out,7 " rests on a single

1 Chron. Iriense, c. 4, ap. Florez, Espana Sagrada, xx. 601.

2 Cited by Sampiro, Roderick of Toledo (cc. 82-84), perhaps the best of the Spanish thirteenth-century chroniclers, etc. Cf. supra^ vol. iii. p. 340 ff.

3 Cf. Chron. Iriense, 6, ap. Florez., I.e., p. 602.

4 Chron. Iriense, c. 7, ap. Florez, Espana Sag., xx., p. 603.

5 Chron., I.e.

6 Villanuno, Summa Concil. HispanicE, i. 401 ; Barcelona, 1850.

7 Life of Ximenez, Eng. trans., p. 183. The Mozarabic liturgy was that of those Spanish Christians who lived under the Arabs or Moors. The word Mozarabic seems to mean naturalised (Arabized). Hence

182 JOHN X.

document l which is certainly not genuine " ; and whatever of fact a supposititious document may preserve incidentally, that particular fact which it is its object to establish is certainly not true. England. So tempestuous was the confusion of this period, that its contemplation might easily lead one to think that all communication between England and Rome must have been suspended. Every now and then, however, the sun of truth, faintly illuminating some small spot, enables us to see that in even the darkest days of the tenth century our countrymen turned to Rome for purposes of piety, and for guidance in things both spiritual and temporal. Undeterred by the fact that in 923 the Saracens of Fraxineto had murdered " a multitude of English who were going to Rome to pray at the shrine of St. Peter,"2 Wulfhelm, archbishop of Canterbury, made his way there in 927.3 Thither too was sent, about the year 924, the English noble Elfred, under the following circum- stances.4 The election of Athelstan, the grandson of Alfred the Great, as king of the English was opposed by one Elfred. The story of Elfred is thus told by Athelstan himself in one of his donations to the abbey of Malmesbury : " Be it known to the sages of our kingdom that I have not

the Mozarabs were opposed to the Arabs proper. The Mozarabic liturgy was probably the old Spanish liturgy (which was essentially the same as the Roman) modified by time and contact with the Greeks and Visigoths and their liturgies ; or perhaps it was simply the liturgy of the Arian Visigoths as purged from error by their apostle, St. Leander. In any case, it is certainly not the composition of St. Isidore of Seville, as is often erroneously asserted. Cf. Explic. de la Messe, by Le Brun, Paris, 1843, t ii., Diss. 5. Cf. Lucas on " The Roman and Gallican Liturgies," in the Month, January 1902, and Dublin Review, October 1893 and January 1894 ; Cabrol, Les origines lilurgigucs, p. 21 1 ft

1 Ap. Florez, Esp. Sagrada, iii., app. 3, p. 29 f., and Villanuno, I.e.

* Frodoard, Ann., 923. 3 A. Sax. Chron., ad an.

4 Malmesbury, De Gest. Reg., 1. ii., p. 1104, ed. P. L., t. 179 Bonn's translation is here used.

JOHN X. 183

unjustly seized the lands aforesaid, or dedicated plunder to God, but that I have received them as the English nobility, and, moreover, John,1 the apostolic Pope of the Roman Church, have judged fitting, on the death of Elfred. He was the jealous rival both of my happiness and life, and consented to the wickedness of my enemies, who, on my father's decease, had not God in His mercy delivered me, wished to put out my eyes in the city of Winchester. Wherefore, on the discovery of their infernal contrivances, he was sent to the Church of Rome to defend himself by oath before Pope John. This he did at the altar of St. Peter; but at the very instant he had sworn, he fell down before it, and was carried by his servants to the English schola or quarter, where he died the third night after. The Pope immediately sent to consult with us whether his body should be placed among other Christians. On receiving this account, the nobility of our kingdom, with the whole body of his relations, humbly entreated that we would grant our permission for his remains to be buried with other Christians. Consenting, therefore, to their urgent request, we sent back our compliance to Rome, and with the Pope's permission he was buried, though unworthy,, with other Christians." Stories of this kind show in what a thoroughly paternal light the Pope was at this epoch regarded by the nations of the West, and how such temporal power and influence as he acquired in the later Middle Ages had their source in spontaneous acts of sub- mission offered to him by them, when they were in the days of their youth, and stood more in need of a father's guidance.

But when his eyes were turned to the North, John saw John and even far beyond the isles of Britain. Before the close of Hamburg- the ninth century, the enterprising long-ships of the 1 The commentator in Migne has John XI. by mistake.

1 84 JOHN X.

Northmen had not only discovered Iceland and Greenland, but had even conveyed colonists thither. These events must have made some sensation even in the tenth century, and John so far provided for the future establishment of Christianity there as to put those distant countries, more or less romantic even now, under the spiritual care of the archbishop of Hamburg-Bremen. On the death of Bishop Reinward in 917, King Conrad, who did not end his days till just before Christmas Day in 918, "by divine inspira- tion " selected to succeed him not the elect of the clergy and people, but the elect's chaplain, Wenni or Unni. At least so the story was told to the good canon Adam of Bremen in the following century. To Wenni, as the papal bull proves, did John X. send the pallium x (October 29, 917). The privilege of John X. confirmed the bulls of Gregory IV., Nicholas I., etc., and granted Wenni the pallium and jurisdiction over the bishops in Sweden, Den- mark,Norway, Iceland, Scandinavia,Greenland, and in all the northern parts and in certain Slav localities. The privilege further subjected to the bishops of Hamburg all the countries they might bring to the faith. No doubt this final concession explains the subsequent introduction into the bull of " Iceland and Greenland," which had no bishops in 917. When these countries had been brought to the faith of Christ, some scribe who made a copy of the original bull after that event, would add their names to it ; for he would regard them as clearly subject to the archdiocese of Hamburg. In conclusion, the privilege declared that the jurisdiction of the bishops of Hamburg was not to be interfered with either by the bishop of Cologne or by any other bishop. The date of the bull

1 "Cui (Unni) p. J. X., ut privilegium indic.it, palleum dedit." Ad. Brem., i., n. 56, ap. Migne, t. 146, p. 497. The bull is in Liverani, iv., n. 9.

JOHN X. 185

should be " the fourth year of Pope John and the fifth indiction," and not the first year of the Pope and the eighth indiction, as it appears in the printed editions. By such as question the authenticity of this document, it must be ever remembered that a bull is not shown to be invalid when it is shown that its date, as it is read in such copies as have weathered the storms of time, is not properly expressed ; that the existence of a bull of John X. is vouched for by Adam of Bremen, who had evidently examined it; and that nothing conclusive can be urged against the genuineness of the particular one which has come down to us.

Amid the din of battle and the turmoil of faction John Buildings, found time to beautify the Lateran, though in what precise manner we know not. Benedict of Soracte 1 simply speaks of paintings and inscriptions placed by him in the Lateran palace.

This notice, however, is of value, as it apparently fixes John's

place of

the Pope s place of burial. For John the Deacon, in his burial oft-quoted description of the Lateran, speaks of the tomb2 of a Pope John in the atrium of the basilica near the principal entrance ; and, relying doubtless on some subse- quent verses of the epitaph of which he quotes the first line only, adds of this Pope John that he renewed the basilica. Now, as John X. is the only Pope of that name of whom we read that he repaired the Lateran basilica, we may reasonably conclude that the tomb spoken of by the deacon was that of John X.

Correcting Cinagli and others, Liverani3 maintains that Coins, there are only two and not three extant coins of John X., both bearing the names of the Pope and St. Peter, Rome

1 Frodoard (see below) and Bonizo also mention this work of John.

2 "Pontificis summi pausant ibi membra Joannis." Ap. P. Z,., 194, p. 1551-

3 it, p. 55i f.

1 86 JOHN X.

and Berengarius, M.P. for imperator. Since the time of Liverani, however, other similar coins have been found.1 Content- To show the good opinion of John entertained by

poraries on

John x. Frodoard, and that too though he had to suffer for John's action in the matter of the young son of Heribert of Vermandois, and to serve as his epitaph, we quote the words of that careful historian : —

"Surgit abhinc decimus scandens sacra jura Joannes. Rexerat ille Ravennatem moderamine plebem. Inde petitus ad hanc Romanam percolit arcem. Bis septem qua praenituit paulo amplius annis. Pontifici hie nostro legat segmenta Seulfo. Munificisque sacram decorans ornatibus aulam, Pace nitet, dum patricia deceptus iniqua Carcere conjicitur claustrisque arctatur opacis. Spiritus at saevis retineri non valet antris, Emicat immo rethera decreta sedilia scandens."

In these words Frodoard tells how John was brought from Ravenna to Rome, and was Pope for rather over fourteen years. He tells of his gifts to his own archbishop, and of his decorating the Lateran. Whilst he was work- ing for peace, patrician guile cast him into prison ; but its black vaults could not enchain his soul, which ascended to the bright realms above.

While the anonymous panegyrist of Berengarius, not un- naturally perhaps, praises the friend of his hero, extolling his zeal and wisdom,2 Benedict of Soracte, who knows how to be very severe on a Pope when he likes, has no word to say against the moral character of John X. Finally, it is to be noted that not even John's one detractor, Liutprand, brings any charge directly against him after he

1 Cf. Promis, and Pizzamiglio, Prime tnonctc papali, p. 61. The former also assigns to this Pope various coins which bear the name of John, but not that of any emperor. They would have been coined after 924.

2 " Officio affatim clarus, sophiaque repletus." R. I. SS., ii., p. i., 405.

JOHN X. 187

became Pope. Even if, therefore, that inaccurate and slanderous historian is to be believed, and John must be set down as of loose character before he became Pope, his many glorious deeds are an indisputable testimony of his worth when Pope. If, according to Liutprand, he was the slave of Theodora while archbishop of Ravenna, he was not infatuated by Marozia when Pope of Rome.

LEO VI.

A.D. 928 or 928-9.

The two immediate successors of John X. are mere shadows

of whom we barely know " their exits and their entrances."

The first of them was Leo, a Roman, the son of Christopher

who had been primicerius under John VIII., and whose

name appears in several papal documents belonging to the

year 876. When Leo became Pope he was serving the

Church of St. Susanna. Practically all we know of him,

viz. his action in Dalmatia,1 has been already told under

the pontificate of John X. Ages ago Ptolemy of Lucca2

(fi327) declared that he could find nothing recorded of this

Pope but that * he exercised no tyranny and died in peace,

and that according to most writers he was buried in St.

Peter's." Almost the same confession has to be made now.

Frodoard simply says of him : —

u Pro quo celsa Petri sextus Leo regmina sumens, Mensibus hasc septem servat, quinisque diebus, Pncdecessorumque petit consortia vatum."

Those who say he was placed on the papal throne by Marozia say what is perhaps probable ; while those who say he died in prison say what is certainly improbable.

If with JarTe we suppose he became Pope in June 928, he must have died in February 929 ; but in December 928 or January 929 if with Duchesne we hold that he was con- secrated somewhat earlier than June.

1 His bull on this subject may be read ap. P. L., t. 132. 1 Hist. Eccles.y 1. 17, c. 4.

188

STEPHEN (VII.) VIII.

A.D. 929-93I-

The shadow of Stephen VIII., a Roman, the son of Teudemund, and formerly cardinal-priest of St. Anastasia, the second successor of John X., is scarcely any better de- fined than that of Leo VI. ; and that too though he reigned longer. He was Pope for over two years and a half.1 While Ptolemy of Lucca 2 could find nothing more to say of him than that " his pontificate passed in peace, and in death his body to St. Peter's," the diligence of such moderns as Pflugk-Hartung has brought to light a few of his bulls in favour of monasteries in France and Italy.3

A silver coin with the name of Stephen, coupled with a coin (?)

of* Pone

that of St. Paul on the obverse, and on the reverse that of Stephen.

Rome along with that of St. Peter, is assigned by Cinagli

to this Stephen. Other authors, however, suppose it to

be the work of some other Pope Stephen. There seems

nothing about the coin to enable its ownership to be

decided definitely.

Of this Pope Frodoard writes : —

" Septimus hinc Stephanus binos prsefulget in annos, Aucto mense super, bisseno ac sole jugato, Disposita post quod spatium sibi sege locatur."

Those who believe that in a verse each word is the un- shackled choice of the poet himself, and do not imagine the

1 From (Jane), c. Feb. 929 ; (Duchesne), Dec. 928 or Jan. 929 to (J.) c. March 931 ; (D.) Feb. 931.

2 L.c, c. 5. 3 Jane, Reg., 3581 (2743) £ 1 or ap. P. Z., t. 132.

189

190 STEPHEN (VII.) VIII.

exigencies of the line itself have anything to do with the matter, will conclude from the word " praefulget " that our pontiff was illustrious by his shining virtues. It may be so ; but they have failed to pierce the gloom of the period and to shed any light on posterity. If, however, we can put faith in a twelfth century Greek document,1 we must believe that Stephen VIII. was "the first Pope who was shameless enough to shave himself, and to order the rest of Italy to do likewise" ! In their anxiety to justify their position of schism, any charge was good enough for the Greeks to bring against the Roman pontiffs.

1 Opusc, ii., c. 12, p. 170, ap. Hergenroether, Mon. Grczca ad Photium pertin.

Coin of John XI. (From the Vatican Collection.)

JOHN XI.

A.D. 931-936.

Sources. — Over and above the chroniclers already mentioned and certain privileges 1 (ap. P. £., t. 132, etc.) brought to light by the industry of modern research, a most important document for the history of these dark times was printed for the first time by Cardinal Pitra in 1885 (De Epp. et Regist. Rom. PP., p. 469 f. Cf. also p. 122 f.). It consists of a letter written to the Pope by Theodore Daphnopata, the secretary of the Emperor Romanus I., in his master's name. The MS. was found in Patmos by Sak- kelion ; but the cardinal has to express his regret that, owing to the very small and complex characters in which modern Greeks write, he does not feel quite sure that either in his Greek text or Latin version he has always perfectly reproduced the copy sent to him.

To two shadows there succeeded, in the person of John XI., Position

it .1 , . , . . ,, , , , and parent-

a puppet, a man without authority, destitute of all worldly age. dignity, and who merely performed the sacred duties of his ministry. For all civil power had been seized by his brother (Alberic), the Patrician." So writes our best authority, Frodoard.2 But as the natural qualities of John (glorioscz indolis) are highly praised by that rigid upholder of

1 Generally granted on condition^ a small annual tax to be paid to the Holy See.

2 In his verses, to be quoted, as usual, at the end of this biography.

191

IQ2 JOHN XI.

ecclesiastical discipline, Ratherius of Verona,1 it is no doubt correct to suppose that his subordinate position was due not so much to any marked want of virtue or ability in himself as to the force of circumstances, to his youth,'2 to the natural tendency to submission to parental authority, and to the masterful character of his brother Alberic II. The latter's admirer, Benedict of Soracte, who "thinks that his memory will endure for ever," gives us to under- stand that his character was in keeping with the fierce and gleaming countenance which he had inherited from his father. He was simply terrific3 — a type of a ferocious Italian bandit. When such a man was lord of Rome, little wonder that others had not much authority.

As John XI. is always spoken of by Frodoard as the brother4 of Alberic II. and the son of Marozia, and as it is certain, not merely from Liutprand but from Benedict, that Alberic II. was the son of Alberic I., we may well be permitted to believe, despite Liutprand, that John XI. also was the son of Alberic I. In addition to what was said on this subject in the life of Sergius III., it may here be noted that the letter of Theodore Daphnopata — the importance of which as historical evidence cannot be over- stated— makes it plain that John himself had spoken of his mother and his sister in a way that could not be looked for

1 Ep. v., ad Joan. XII., p. 538, ed. Veron, or ap. P. Z., t. 136. Some would discount the testimony of Ratherius because he had been favoured by John XI.

■ If, as we suppose, he was the son of Marozia and Alberic I., count of Camerino, whom she married about 905, he must have been about twenty-five at this time.

3 "Albericus princeps omnium Romanorum vultum nitentem sicut pater ejus, grandevus virtus ejus. Erat enim terribilis m'mzs, et aggra- batum est jugum super Romanos, et in sancte sedis apostolice." c. 32.

4 Cf. also Honizo. Benedict (c. 30) speaks of him as the brother or relation {consan^uineus) of Marozia. Does he, however, perchance use this phrase to denote his illegitimate origin ?

JOHN XL I93

in a mere bastard. It can scarcely be believed too that John would have entered into negotiations with the punctilious emperor of Constantinople, with the object of allying his sister with the son of Romanus, if his own relationship to her was not that of brother in the strictest sense. No doubt the reason why John is so generally spoken of as the son of Marozia and the brother of Alberic is that his father, Alberic I., was dead when he became Pope, and his brother made himself so famous by becoming tyrant of Rome.

However, be all this as it may, Marozia, who, through is made the influence of her husband Alberic and the possession of the castle of St. Angelo, had acquired immense power in Rome, in order to increase that power, caused her son John, of the title of S. Maria in Trastevere, to be elected Pope about the month of March 93 1.1 Both Benedict and Liutprand err in making John XI. the immediate successor of John X.

Not content with the increased importance which accrued Third to her from being the mother of the Pope, or perhaps of Marozia, already fearing her son Alberic, Marozia determined to 932' advance her authority still more by marrying for the third time. She made choice of Hugo of Provence, the king of Italy, a man who, if "gifted in no common degree .... (was) the most dissolute voluptuary of his time,"2 and was, moreover, her brother-in-law; for he was the step- brother of her late husband Guido of Tuscany. But neither Hugo nor Marozia3 paid any regard to canonical impedi-

1 Jaffe, c. March 931 ; Duchesne, Feb.-March. " Domna senatrix (Marozia) .... ordinavit Johannes consanguineum ejus in sedem sanctissimus, pro quo undecimus est appellatus5 — so runs the elegant Latin of the monk of Soracte, c. 30.

2 Gregorovius, Rome, iii. 284. Cf. Liut., Ant., iv. 14.

3 " Nichil hoc Venus ebria curat," says Liutprand of her, quoting Juvenal, Sat, vi. 300. Ant., iii. 44.

VOL. IV. 1 3

194 JOHN XI.

ments that stood in the way of their ambitions. She wished to be queen of Italy; he, to hold Rome. Hugo Accordingly, if one can believe that gross flatterer

Rome. Liutprand, who has the brazen effrontery to upbraid Marozia for ruining such a holy man as Hugo,1 the king accepted the invitation of Marozia and advanced on Rome. Whether it was because he trusted in the strength of the castle of St. Angelo, or because he found there was an indisposition on the part of the Romans to have an army within their walls, Hugo followed the usual custom, left his troops without the city, and entered Rome merely with a bodyguard. He met with an honourable reception from the Romans, and his marriage with Marozia was duly cele- brated. Safe, as he imagined, within the fortress by the Tiber, Hugo determined to reduce the city under his com- plete control, and to this end to seize his stepson Alberic and to put out his eyes ; for in him he rightly beheld the one obstacle to the accomplishment of his designs.'2 Ac- cording to the narrative of Liutprand, an accident brought matters to a crisis before the plans of Hugo were quite ripe. Chancing carelessly to pour out the water with which the king was to wash his hands, the young Alberic received a blow in the face from the irate Burgundian. Alberic With cheek and passion alike in flame, the youth rushed

rouses his

party. from the castle. Soon the whole city was ablaze with his fiery words : u To such a depth of degradation," he cried, " has Rome been brought, that it obeys the rule of harlots. Burgundians, once the slaves of the Romans, now rule over them. If though but newly come amongst us, he (Hugo) has struck the face of a son-in-law, what will he not do to

1 "Quid juvat, obscelerata (Marozia), vi rum sic perdere sanctum?" lb. Cf. Benedict, c. 32.

1 "Cogitavit rex pessima, ut oculos Albericis previgni sui erueret, et Romanum regnum in sua redigeret potestatis." Bened., ib.

JOHN XI. 195

you when his position is secured ? Are you ignorant of Burgundian haughtiness and voracity?" All this is, of course, merely Liutprand. The fact is, that Alberic realised quite as well as Hugo that Rome was not big enough for both of them, and he succeeded in stirring up the people {i.e. his own particular party) against his rival. To the sound of trumpets and bells {voces ecclesiarum) men flew to arms, and moved towards the Mole of Hadrian. Fearing for his life, Hugo contrived to escape before the castle was stormed. Master of St. Angelo and Rome, Alberic imprisoned his mother and confined the Pope.1

These events probably took place at the close of the The rule of year 932, and certainly not later than the beginning of 933. And, in the words of Benedict, Alberic's " yoke pressed heavily as well on the Romans as on the Apostolic See." It continued to press heavily for over twenty years. Hence we may be sure that when Frodoard in his verses on John XI. assigned him only two years of a reign, he did so because he would not reckon the years he was in confinement. To this period of the imprisonment of Marozia and the keeping of her son in durance vile, Muratori 2 assigns the dissemination of those baseless stories against Marozia and her family which Liutprand repeated with such gusto. The spread of such reports would facilitate the usurped rule of Alberic, and may well have received his countenance.

It is of moment to form a correct idea both of the agents The usur- and of the results of the usurpation of the son of Marozia. Alberic. Writers who speak of the Romans rejoicing over the meant for

Rome and

1 Frodoard, Ann., 933 ; Hist. 7?., iv. 24. ; Bened., c. 32. According the PoPes- to Liutprand, " Romanas urbis Albericus monarchiam tenuit." Antap.,

iii. 46. Cf. v. 3, and Legat, c. 62. In his carelessness he speaks as though Marozia were driven from the city along with Hugo. Alberic's rule lasted from 932 to 954.

2 Annal., 932.

I96 JOHN XI.

action of Alberic because they " had shaken off at one stroke the monarchy, the empire, and the temporal power of the Pope, and had attained civic independence," must surely be attaching undue importance to some1 words of Liut- prand, and neglecting not only other words of that same writer, but the far more weighty ones of other more reliable authors. The Romans under Alberic had as much " civic independence " as they had under the sway of Marozia, i.e., practically none at all, and John XI. had still less power than he had under his mother. Already for some ten years or so the Popes seem to have lost all civil control over Ravenna and the exarchate.2 And now, by the usurpation of Alberic and his adherents, John XI. lost not only all civil power in Rome, but practically his own personal independence. Rome was, in fact, under a tyranny. It was in a similar position to Florence, Milan, and the other great cities of the northern half of Italy at the close of the Middle Ages when under the sway of the Medici, the Visconti, and the rest. That section of the Roman nobility which had been striving for more power since the days of Pippin and Charlemagne, when increased temporal authority came to the Popes, had now, in the person of Alberic, gained the upper hand. And the titles of Senator, Patrician, Prince of all the Romans, which Alberic affected, were in no sense bestowed on him by the Romans at large; they were assumed by Alberic himself, as was the power they

1 "Hugonem cuncti deserunt, atque Albericum sibi dominum eligunt." Ant., iii. 45. They neglect, ib., c. 46, " Urbis Albericus monarchiam tenuit"; and ib.., v. 3, and especially "cum impiissimus A. Romanam civitatem sibi usurparet? etc., Leg., 62 ; also the words of Benedict, " aggravatum est jugum," etc. ; of Frodoard, " Fratre a Patricio juris moderamine rapto." Cf. also the words of Bonizo {Liber ad Amicum, 1. iii., ap. Watterich, i. 726) : " Urbis Rome capitanei nomen sibi mane imponentes patriatiatus R. ecclesiam validissime devas- taverunt."

2 Muratori, Anna/., 921.

JOHN XI. 197

expressed. The women of his family assumed the title of Senatrix. But the power of the Senator of all the Romans was very limited ; it was practically restricted to the city of Rome. If the Popes had no temporal jurisdiction within its walls, Alberic had none outside them. Hugo was frequently in arms before the gates of the Eternal City.

After laying waste the Campagna, Hugo appeared before Hugo

bcsicEfcs

the walls of Rome the year after he had been driven from it. Rome, 933 After having in vain attempted to carry the city by storm, an he had to raise the siege. However, in three years' time he was back again. On this second occasion, after peace had been made by the exertions of the saintly Abbot Odo of Cluny, Hugo tried the fox's skin as the lion's had failed. Trusting by its use to get Alberic into his power, Hugo offered him his daughter Alda in marriage. Alberic accepted the daughter, but would have nothing to do with the father in-law. On the contrary, he received his enemies with great kindness.1 For a second time Hugo had to retire discomfited.

Alberic no doubt accepted Alda to pacify Hugo. But Albert's he had formerly hoped to effect a marriage which would ShenS? have strengthened his hands against him. If Benedict (c. 34) has not confused Alberic's wish to espouse his sister to the son of Romanus I. with a desire himself to marry a daughter of Romanus (who at this time was ruling in Constantinople with Constantine Porphyrogenitus), it would seem that the Prince of the Romans had at one time thought of securing his position by a double matrimonial alliance with Constantinople.

At this time the Greek Church generally was in as bad Unhappy

it-. *s. r- 1 r*% 1 • ry • 1 condition

a state as the Roman. Of the Church in Constantinople of the

Greek , . . ,. , Church. 1 Liut., Ant., iv., c. 3. Cf. Frod., Chron., 936. From this time forth

Liutprand professes to be relating what he knows from his own

experience.

I98 JOHN XI.

in particular, Finlay 1 thus writes : " The attachment of the people had once rendered the Patriarch almost equal to the emperor in dignity, but the clergy of the capital were now more closely connected with the court than the people. The power of the emperor to depose as well as to appoint the Patriarch was hardly questioned, and of course the head of the Eastern Church occupied a very inferior position to the Pope. . . . Both religion and civil- isation suffered by this additional centralisation of power in the imperial cabinet. From this period we may date the decline of the Greek Church." Its decline was helped by the dissolute patriarch Theophylactus. For some twenty years this imperial nominee scandalised the Church of Constantinople. He was at once simoniacal, profane, and extravagant. He introduced dances into the most solemn services of the Church, kept two thousand horses, and could not wait to finish Mass if he was informed that a favourite mare was about to foal ! This hippomania, which Schlumberger2 is pleased to observe " is worthy of a great English gentleman," brought about his death. He died (t956) from a fall from one of his horses.

To make way for the promotion to the patriarchate of this unworthy son of his, a eunuch of but sixteen years of age, the legitimate patriarch Tryphon had been deposed (September 931) by the Emperor Romanus, and negotia- tions had been opened with Rome to obtain the con- firmation of the youthful Theophylactus. Judging from the length of time which elapsed between the deposi- tion of Tryphon and the consecration of his successor

1 Byzantine Empire, p. 355. Speaking of the days of Basil I. (867- 886), he had already said (p. 282) : " The bishops now lost their position of defenders of the people, for, as they were chosen by the sovereign, the dignitaries of the Byzantine Church were remarkable for their servility to the civil power."

2 Un Empereur Byzantin, p. 18.

JOHN XL 199

(February 933), it would seem that whilst John was free he would not grant the required confirmation. But when Alberic had seized the reins of civil government, and had the Pope in his power,1 he realised that he might profit by compliance with the desires of Romanus. The price of the confirmation was to be the double matrimonial alliance of which we have just spoken. Liutprand, indeed, says that Romanus bought Alberic with money. It is, no doubt, likely enough that the " Prince of all the Romans " received money as well for his share in the transaction. At any rate the letters of confirmation were sent2 by the hands of papal legates (one of whom was Bishop Madalbert, whose former missions to the East have been already noted), and the furthering of the matrimonial projects of Alberic were no doubt entrusted to them at the same time. The youthful patriarch was duly installed 3 by the papal legates (February 2, 933), who then turned their attention to the question of

1 Liut. , Leg., c. 62. Quum Albericus .... "dominum apostolicum quasi servum proprium in conclavi teneret."

2 lb. Romanus by presents to Alberic " effecit, ut ex papae nomine Theophylacto patriarchae litterae mitterentur, quarum auctoritate cum ipse, turn successores ejus, absque paparum permissu palliis uterentur." Cf. Georgius Monachus (a contemporary author), "Theophylactus ordinatur .... cum adessent ex Roma vicarii, tomumque synodalem de illius tractantem ordinatione inferrent," c. 45, p. 913, ed. Bonn. The Latin translation here given faithfully reproduces the Greek original. Neale (A History of the Holy Eastern Church, i. 312) seems to have misunderstood Liutprand. He does not say that the pallium was "first granted" by John to Theophylactus, but that leave was first granted to him to assume it without any reference to the Holy See. It was generally understood in the West at this time that the patriarch of Constantinople had to receive the pallium from the Pope like the metropolitans of Cologne, Canterbury, etc. Cf. also the author of the Invectiva (p. 833): "A quo ergo Bysandum, quae Constantinopolis vocatur, Ravenna, etc., caeteraeque urbes metropolitanas, nisi ab apostolica potestate pallium sumant."

3 Cf. also Theoph. Contin., vi. 34 ; Symeon Mag., c. 43.

200 JOHN XI.

the alliances. As far as Alberic himself was concerned, we have already seen how the action of Hugo more or less forced him to take to wife Alda, the daughter of his enemy (936). However, the negotiations for the marriage of his and the Pope's sister with a son of Romanus con- tinued ; and it is in connection with that subject that there arrived in Rome the oft-mentioned letter to the Pope from the secretary of the Greek emperor.

It opened with the bestowal of great praise on the Pope's legates. John himself is then thanked for having acknow- ledged Theophylactus, and for having caused him to be installed as patriarch by his legates, through whom be- coming homage was paid to him (John). The letter went on to deprecate the conduct of some who had opposed the consecration of Theophylactus on the ground that privileges ought not to be given up, and that it was within their right to manage the affairs of the Church of Constantinople with- out the interference of the bishops of Rome Of course, they contended that, when there was question of any diffi- culty with regard to " our orthodox faith," the bishops of Rome and of the other thrones must be summoned to give their assistance. But where there was only question of making a patriarch, the bishop of Rome had never been called in, except in a friendly way to rejoice with them. These talkers (rcti/rais rctf? avriXoylais €/uL<pt\oxu>pwavT€$), continued the emperor, had soon fallen into line, and all was now in harmony. This desired consummation was the work of the Pope, and to him, " the most revered of bishops" (apxiepewv a-e^aa- /moor are), thanks are again due. Romanus next apologised for detaining the Pope's legates so long — but the business was important. To accom- pany them on their return, he is sending two apocrisiarii of his own who will give additional explanations. Further, that matters may not go against his son after his (the

JOHN XL 201

emperor's) death, " as a suppliant of your supreme ponti- fical power" (iKerat 7-/79 vjulcov apxiepaTUcrjs TeXeiorrjrog), he begs the Pope, his father, to assemble all the clergy of the Roman Church that they may hear the explanations of the imperial envoys concerning the consecration of Theo- phylactus; to cause a decree to be drawn up confirming the young patriarch's ordination ; both to sign it himself and see that it was signed by all the rest ; and to add at the end of the document: "If anyone should not acknow- ledge and confess as proper and lawful the consecration of the lord Theophylactus as patriarch of Constantinople, but should attempt to carp at it, let such a one, whether emperor, senator, priest, or man of low degree, be subjected to the ban of the Most Holy Spirit and of the Princes of the Apostles and be rendered amenable to eternal ana- thema." x Romanus then begged that this document might be sent to Constantinople to be there kept ; and assured the Pope he would be ever grateful to him, and would help him. In conclusion, he declared how pleased he would be to be connected with the Pope by the proposed matri- monial alliance. Owing to distance and reasons of state, his son indeed could not well go to Rome to fetch his bride, but perhaps the bride's mother could bring her, availing herself of the vessels in which the Pope's legates have left for Rome; or, if preferable, faithful servants could bring her. Or, in fine, if the present were for any cause an unsuitable time, the emperor would, on hearing from the Pope, send ships and proper persons to conduct the maiden to Constantinople, and by the will of Heaven "conclude the matrimonial alliance."

1 On this formula of anathema, which is that of Gregory I., Pitra remarks (id., 123) that, when he showed its use through the ages, "he was far from expecting to find it three centuries later in an imperial letter from Constantinople. Romanus .... will have consulted the legates to enable him to adopt the most solemn form of sanction."

202 JOHN XI.

As Constantine Porphyrogenitus, with whom Romanus was then reigning, has left on record, in his work on The Government of the Empire (c. 13), the various devices to which Byzantine rulers were wont to have recourse to prevent foreign princes from marrying into the imperial family, it is hard to say whether Romanus was in good faith in this marriage question. At any rate the young couple were never wedded. But it is not from matrimonial affairs that this letter is so interesting and valuable. It is because it shows the East and West still at one in matters of religion, and both as yet acknowledging the Pope as the head of that united whole. At the same time un- mistakable mutterings of the coming storm are audible in it. In it may be noted the existence of those narrow spirits who are to be met with in every age of the Church, and who are ever trying to make the universal truths of which the Church is the guardian subservient to views merely local and temporal, and to subordinate the soul and its aspirations to the material advancement of the body. Pallium for Theophylactus was not the only one for whom Alberic 933. arranged that the pallium should be sent. We have

already seen how the powerful count, Heribert of Verman- dois, had secured from John X. the confirmation of the election, as archbishop of Rheims, of his youthful son Hugh. But when, in the course of a quarrel between King Rodolf and Heribert, the former seized Rheims, he placed by force on the episcopal throne of that city the monk Artaud; for the clergy and people refused to accede to his request to elect another archbishop, as Hugh was still alive. However, according to Artaud himself,1 he was accepted by the whole people of the city after his conse- cration (952), and a year afterwards received the pallium from Pope John, " the son of Maria, called also Marozia, or 1 Ep., ap. Frod., Hist. Rem., iv. 35.

JOHN XI. 203

rather from the Patrician Alberic, brother of the Pope, who kept John in his power." x With one bishop thus actually consecrated for the See of Rheims and another (Hugh), though not consecrated, long ago nominated for it, we may be sure that trouble would soon arise for the Church of Rheims ; and it did. The further course of the history of the relations between Hugh and Artaud will be related in the life of Agapitus II.

Like his namesake John X., this Pope is also con- Monastic

privileges

nected with the famous monastery of Cluny, the abbot of which, the famous Odo, did much good in Italy during his pontificate. John confirmed the privileges not only of Cluny itself — on the condition of a payment of ten solidi every five years — but also of various of its dependent houses, at the request of Odo.2 With the exception of the granting of a few similar privileges to other monasteries, we know no more of the actions of John XI. during his period of bondage to his brother "the Prince of the Romans." Than the biographies of some of the pontiffs of the tenth century, no further argument can surely be necessary to show the necessity of the absolute freedom of the Pope from all local civil control, if he is to be able to fulfil adequately his duties as supreme pastor of the Universal Church.

The extant coins of this Pope show clearly the days both Coins. of his independence and dependence. Whilst he was free, his coins bore only his own name, that of St. Peter and Roma, if indeed the coin assigned by Cinagli to this Pope does not belong to John XII.3 His state of subjection is shown by a coin discovered somewhat over twenty years ago in the Tiber. On the obverse it not only bears the name of Alberic " Princeps," but sets forth that he " ordered it to

1 Ep., ap. Frod., Hist. Re?n., iv., c. 24.

2 Jaffe, 3584 (2744), etc. 3 Cf. Promis, p. 85.

204 JOHN XI.

be struck" {ft j'u, i.e., fieri jussit). On the reverse appears

the monogram of the Pope. The verses John XI. died either towards the close of 935 (Duchesne, doard. December) or in the beginning of 936 (January, Jaffe).

Of his overshadowed career Frodoard wrote l : —

" Xato patriciae hinc cedunt pia jura Joanni ; Undecimus Petri hoc qui nomine sede levatur. Vi vacuus, splendore carens, modo sacra ministrans, Fratre a patricio juris moderamine rapto, Qui matrem incestam rerum fastigia mcecho Tradere conantem decimum sub claustra Johannem Quae dederat, claustri vigili et custode subegit. Artoldus noster sub quo sacra pallia sumit ; Papaque obit nomen geminum ferre nactus in annum."

Duchesne tells us there was a contemporary gloss on the last verse to the effect that John was Pope in name indeed but not in fact.

In these verses Frodoard tells how John XI., the son of the Patricia, was stripped of all power by his brother, who placed his mother under the same confinement under which she had placed John X., when she attempted to make over the supreme power in the city to Hugo {mcecho). It was from John XI. that Frodoard's archbishop obtained the pallium. He died after having been Pope really only two years.

1 De triumph., xii. 7.

Coin of John XI. (From a copy of the unique specimen in the Vatican Collection. It bears the words Fi Ju, etc. See p. 203 f.)

LEO VII.

A.D. 936-939- Sources. — Fifteen privileges, ap. P. Z., t. 132.

With regard to the dates of the consecration and death Becomes of Leo VII., a Roman by birth, and priest of St. Sixtus, ope' 93 we are on surer ground than we are for the corresponding dates of many of the other pontiffs of this period. In assigning January 3, 936 as the date of Leo's consecration and July 13 as the date of his death, Duchesne is in practical agreement with Jaffe. And both authors have sound documentary evidence to rest upon. Other evidence we have concerning Leo is not so easy to interpret. From the fact that Frodoard 1 calls him " a servant of God " (servus Dei), and that in a letter regarding the abbey of Fleury2 he himself alludes to St. Benedict as "a worthy father" (egregius pater), and speaks of "our lord the most blessed Benedict," many authors conclude that Leo was a Benedictine monk. This contention may be said to be

Ann., 639.

2 Ep. 9, ap. P. L., t. 132, p. 1078. He speaks of Fleury "ubi requiescit egregius Pater domnus noster bb. Benedictus, decus videlicet gemmaque monachorum." Cf. ep. II.

205

206 LEO VII.

strengthened by the fact that Alberic, " the most glorious Prince and Senator of the Romans,"1 was very much devoted to monasteries and monks, and hence may well be supposed to have selected a monk to succeed John XI. Besides, he was sure to have argued that a simple and pious monk would not be likely to question his usurpation of papal temporal power. It was during the pontificate of Leo VII. that our worthy historian Frodoard came to Rome, so that what he tells us of the Roman pontiff of 936 he had first learnt by his own eyes and ears. The last of the good canon's verses tell of Leo VII. By them Leo is put before us as one whose thoughts were fixed only on God, and who had no care for the things of earth. Pressure had to be brought to bear upon him before he could be induced to accept the supreme pontificate, of which he showed himself to be thoroughly worthy. His elevation made no change in him ; he remained devoted to prayer. Learned was he too, affable in manner, gracious in speech and countenance. Speaking of his kind recep- tion by Leo, Frodoard fails not to tell us how the good Pope refreshed at once his temporal and spiritual needs, and sent him on his way rejoicing at the honourable treatment he had received. Naturally enough does Frodoard close his long poem on the Popes with the prayer that God will bestow temporal and eternal blessings on the amiable Leo.2 Siege of It was during the first year of Leo's pontificate that King

Odo of Hugo, as we have already related, besieged Rome for the second time ; 3 and it is generally believed that this was the occasion when the famous Odo of Cluny used his influence with the king of Italy to induce him to raise the

1 So he is spoken of in a privilege in favour of Subiaco, ap. Jaffe, 3597-

2 See the verses at the end of this Life. 3 Supra, p. 197.

LEO VII. 207

siege. No doubt thoroughly well acquainted with the respect with which this loose-living monarch regarded the saintly abbot of Cluny, Leo sent for him to come into Italy to act as peace-maker.1 As we may well imagine from his position in the city, and as we are, in fact, directly informed, Alberic also had his share in this invitation to Odo to come to Rome. Hugh, abbot of the monastery of Farfa among the Sabine hills, in his Destructio Farfensi's,2 records that Alberic, " the glorious prince, was so anxious to bring back the monasteries under his dominion to the due observance of their rule, which had fallen into abeyance during the ravages of the heathen, that he caused the holy Abbot Odo to come from Gaul, and constituted him archi- mandrite (or abbot-general) over all the monasteries in the neighbourhood of Rome. Moreover, he gave 3 the house on the Aventine in which he was born to be turned into a monastery in honour of Our Lady. It may be seen to this day." And on this day too of the twentieth century a church of Our Lady (S. M. Aventinense or S. M. del Priorato) still occupies the site of the house of Alberic.

When Odo reached the Eternal City the troops of Hugo were encamped before its walls. " By Pope Leo was he sent," writes4 Odo's disciple and biographer, John the Italian, of his master, " as peace-maker between Hugo, king of the Lombards, and Alberic, prince of the city of Rome." To effect a treaty between them, and " to save the city the horrors of siege, the abbot passed backwards and

1 " Italiam missi sumus a Leone summo pontifice, ut pacis legatione fungeremur inter Hugonem, . . . et Albericum." Vit. Odom's, ii., c. 7, ubi infra.

2 Written at the beginning of the eleventh century. Ap. M. G. SS., xi., p. 536.

3 Bened. of Soracte, c. 33, gives a long list of his donations to monasteries.

4 In vit. Odonis, ap. Bib. Cluniacensis, p. 35 ; or Migne, t. 133, 1. 2, cc. 7 and 9 ff. p. 64. Cf. Du Bourg, S. Odon., c. 13 ; Paris, 1905.

208 LEO VII.

forwards between the two rulers in his endeavours to soothe the rage of the king." The efforts of the saint, helped by famine among the besiegers and the loss of their horses, were, as we have already seen, crowned with success, and the investment of the city ended like many another tragic prelude with a marriage. Alberic took to wife Alda, Hugo's daughter, and for the time, at least, there was peace between the two rivals ; and Alberic, with the aid of Odo, devoted himself to the founding and reforming of monasteries.

From Rome and the Pope, however, no wars nor rumours of wars, no difficulties nor dangers of any sort have ever been able to keep the devout pilgrim. And in the tenth century the dangers were anything but imaginary. In 923 Frodoard chronicled the slaughter of many of our country- men on their way to Rome by the Saracens of Fraxineto ; and in this year (936) he tells of the same marauders making a plundering expedition into Germany, and on their return killing a number of people who were on the same errand. These scraps of information are worth recording because they show that, despite any disreputable deeds which may have been enacted even in the palace of the Popes during the tenth century, Rome was then to the Christian world still the centre of its religion, and the Pope of Rome still in its eyes the Vicar of Jesus Christ.

And again we may remark that many more or less isolated facts of this age, which are occasionally brought to the surface, prove that the prestige of the Papacy in Europe in the tenth century was not so utterly dimmed as many are disposed to believe. In the reign of Leo VII. events were in progress which were to cause this truth to be illus- trated under his successor by affairs in Gaul. In January 936 died, without issue, Rodolf of Burgundy ; x and the 1 Cf. supra, p. 160.

LEO VII. 209

great nobles of France invited from England Louis, hence called d'Outre-Mer (from beyond the sea), the son of Charles the Simple, to be their king. His mother had carried him as a child to England when his father had been seized by Heribert of Vermandois. Though only sixteen when he came to France, he showed himself a worthy descendant of Charlemagne. Finding him determined to rule, we shall see the great nobles who had summoned him from England deserting him, and Stephen (VIII.) IX., true to the papal tradition of friendship for the Carolingians, effectively standing by him.

In Germany, too, during the pontificate of Leo VII., events were taking place which were destined in their sequel to have the deepest effect on the Papacy, and on which the Popes in turn were to exercise an equal influence. It was in this same year (936) also that Henry I., the Fowler, died, who by his wise policy at home and gallant deeds in the field did so much to form a strong and united Germany, a stout barrier behind which the states of Europe might advance in safety along the road of civilisation. He was contemplating a journey to Rome l — whether as a pilgrim, to bring Italy also to some semblance of order, or for the imperial crown, is not clear — when he was seized with a mortal illness. His son Otho I., as famous in the annals of the Papacy as of Germany, was elected " with the con- sent of the nobles of the kingdom." 2

With the great political events of his age Leo had but Grants of

privileges

little connection. To judge at least by the documents oftomonas-

his reign which jealous time has suffered to survive till

now, he was mostly occupied in issuing bulls in favour

of monasteries. The great monastic development at this

time, attested by the decrees of Leo VII., is at least

a good augury for the future. A new monastery then

1 Widukind, Res. Sax., i., c. 40. 2 Regin. Contin., ad an. 936.

VOL. IV. 14

210 LEO VII.

meant not merely a harbour of peace. for such as were sick at heart at the violence and lawlessness they met with all round them, but a centre of learning, order, and peace. But while these bulls are of the first importance for purposes of chronology and local history, it will serve no useful end to go into them here in any detail. It will be enough to note that most of them are concerned with that grand centre of monastic reform, Cluny ; and that some are granted at the request of Alberic, " most glorious Prince and Senator of all the Romans," x thereby testifying in their silent way to the piety of the tyrant, and perchance to the dependence of the Pope. Others again had been petitioned for even by " Hugo, glorious king, along with his son King Lothaire," associated with himself on the throne of Italy in 931. Reform in One letter at least of Leo VII., of no little importance, has reached us. It is addressed to Frederick, archbishop of Mainz (Mayence). Leo did not limit himself to groaning over the state of the world. It is true he said2 that, "in these our days, times full of danger have come upon us, and whilst charity has grown cold, iniquity so abounds that well-nigh the whole order of things is upset, and there does not seem a place whereon religion may rest." But at the same time he endeavoured to make a home for religion. What he had heard of the work for law and order accom- plished by Henry the Fowler, and what he had been told of the energy of his son, Otho I., naturally made him turn his eyes to Germany. To co-operate with the enlightened efforts of these two great princes, he appointed Frederick ' his vicar and missus throughout all the regions of the whole of Germany, so that, wherever he found any bishops, priests, deacons, or monks failing to do their duty, he was not to omit to correct them, and to bring 1 Jaffe, 3597 f 2 lb., 3610 ; cf. ep. 9.

Germany.

LEO VII. 211

them back to the way of truth." 1 But while, in response to the archbishop's question as to whether it was better to baptize the Jews by force, or drive them out of the cities, he would not allow him to baptize them against their will, he so far yielded to the spirit of the age as to allow him to expel them from the cities unless they embraced the Christian religion. Whether Leo lived to see any of the fruits of his labours for reform in Germany we do not know. He died July 939.

Little as we know of his life, we know enough of it to say that he did what very many in high places fail to do. He dignified the lofty station he held with at least many of the virtues which became it ; though Milman, with what must be stigmatised as his usual inaccuracy, classes Leo VII. with his three successors as Popes who gave " hardly a sign of their power in Rome, no indication of their dignity, still less of their sanctity."2

1 Jaffe, 3613. The Pope granted Frederick's request to be made his vicar after "a diligent search through the bulls of Gregory (III.), Zachary, and Stephen (III.), contained in the archives of our Holy Church," to discover what precedent had to say on the matter. Ep. 14, ap. L. P., t. 132. The letters in connection with a supposed Gerhard, archbishop of Lorch, are forgeries.

2 Latin Christ., iii. 299.

STEPHEN (VIII.) IX.

A.D. 939-942.

Sources. — Two privileges, ap. P. L., t. 132.

Fables con- To supplement the little that they found recorded of

cerning

Stephen. Stephen IX. by reliable authors, Bower and others have fallen back upon fables derived from Martinus Strepus, generally known as Martinus Polonus. This Dominican, who did not compile his famous Chronicle of Popes and Emperors till the latter half of the thirteenth century, is now universally allowed to have been destitute of critical ability and to have freely inserted fables for history. As his Chronicle was very popular, Wattenbach, in his well- known work on the Sources of History, has to regret the loss which accrued to historical studies by the wide circulation of such an uncritical production.1 On the authority of such a late and untrustworthy source, Stephen IX. is described as a German, and as elected Pope by the power of his relative Otho I., who set aside the rights of the cardinals. Hated as a Teuton, he was seized, and so disfigured by the partisans of Alberic that he could not

1 Gregorovius, Rome, vii. 633, speaks of the "monkish fables and fictions of a Martinus Polonus."

212

STEPHEN (VIII.) IX. 213

appear in public. But that Stephen, who was attached to the Church of " SS. Silvester and Martin," now S. Martino ai Monti, was a Roman, is the testimony of the contempor- ary or quasi-contemporary catalogues ; 1 and it is needless to point out that Otho's influence on the affairs of Italy and the Papacy had not as yet made itself felt. In the earlier years of his reign he wab too much taken up with endeavours to secure his own ascendancy over German dukes almost as powerful as himself, and to extend his sway westwards at the expense of Louis d'Outre-Mer, to have been able to concern himself with Italian interests, civil or ecclesiastical.

Elected on July 14, 939,2 Stephen seems to have been The affairs largely taken up with the affairs of Gaul, as the country of the Franks was still frequently called. In the Life of Leo VII. reference was made to the crowning of Louis d'Outre-Mer as king of France. He had been offered the crown because it had been fondly imagined that he would not attempt to wear it effectively. But when it was found that Louis wished to be king in reality as well as in name, several of the more powerful nobles, chief among whom were Hugh the Great, duke of the Franks, whose authority extended over the territory between the Loire and the Seine, and Heribert of Vermandois, combined against him. Hugh was the representative of the line which was soon to oust the Carolingian dynasty from the throne. He was the son of King Robert, and father of Hugh Capet, the founder of the Capetian line which ruled in France till the beginning of the four- teenth century (1328). To strengthen their hands against Louis, the malcontents made overtures to Otho I. of Germany. Unable to make headway against such a powerful combination, the youthful monarch was, by the 1 Cf. Watterich, i. 34 ; and L. P. 2 Duchesne ; c. July, Jane.

214 STEPHEN (VIII.) IX.

beginning of the year 942, reduced to the greatest straits. At this juncture Stephen decided to intervene in his behalf. He accordingly dispatched as his legate to the opposing parties one Damasus, " an illustrious man," whom he had consecrated bishop for the purposes of this embassy.1 He was the bearer of letters from the Pope to the nobles, " and to all the inhabitants of France and Burgundy," to the effect that they were to acknowledge Louis, and to cease their hostility against him under pain of excommunication. Aroused by this action of the Pope, the bishops of the diocese of Rheims met in synod and sought to induce Heribert to prevail on Hugh the Great to submit to Louis. Except that it tended to draw the bishops from the party of the nobles, this first attempt of Stephen to make peace was unsuccessful. One failure, however, only encouraged him to make a second attempt. Perhaps with a view to putting the youth's father (Heribert) and his uncle (Hugh the Great) under an obligation to him, Stephen granted (942) the pallium to Hugh, who, as we have seen, had been elected archbishop of Rheims in his fifth year.2 With the bearers of the pallium was dispatched another embassy from Rome "to the princes of the kingdom." Again were they exhorted to submit to Louis. This time they were told that, if before Christmas they had not sent envoys to Rome to make their submission known to the Pope, they would be excommunicated. The king's cause im- proved at once. Many of the great nobles rallied around him. " This movement in favour of the king seems to have been the result of the menaces from Rome ; for the Papacy still enjoyed a considerable amount of prestige despite the disorders which had preceded the pontificate

1 Frodoard, 942 ; Richer, ii. 27.

8 To the question of Hugh and Artaud we shall again recur under "Agapitus II."

STEPHEN (VIII.) IX. 215

of Leo VII."1 Before the close of the year (942) Louis was at peace with Otho, and had received the submission of the great nobles of his kingdom. " None had dared to brave the sentence of excommunication. It was a victory for the Carolingian royalty in its decline. (But) it was almost entirely owing to the intervention of that Roman power which, in its heyday of prosperity, the decaying dynasty had done so much to establish."2 Even in the darkest hours of the tenth century the Papacy was not that negligible quantity in the political affairs of Europe which many have so long been wont to suppose.

The influence which the Popes then exercised was Third siege exerted when communication with Rome was, from one Hugo, 94* cause and another, most difficult. In 940 Frodoard has again to record another massacre, in the passes of the Alps, of Englishmen (Transmarini) on their way to Rome, by the Saracens of Fraxineto. And in the very year (942) which witnessed Stephen's intervention in behalf of Louis, there was a renewal of the fierce war between Hugo and Alberic, which seriously interrupted communication with Rome, and which was once more only brought to a close by the successful intervention of the saintly Odo.3

Perhaps it is in connection with these efforts from Conspiracy without which Hugo made to overthrow the power of AuSSic. J Alberic that ought to be placed the conspiracy against the latter in Rome itself narrated by Benedict of Soracte (c. 34). In alliance against the Prince of the Romans were not only bishops, but the senatrices, Alberic's sisters. One of these latter, however, betrayed the plot to her brother, and he was enabled to triumph over his foes both within and without the city, whether they were in league or not. The conspirators were scourged {berberati as Benedict calls

1 Lauer, Louis IV. d' Outre- Mer, p. 81, Paris, 1900.

2 lb., p. 86. 3 Frod., Ann., 942 ; cf. Liut, Ant., v. 3.

2l6 STEPHEN (VIII.) IX.

it), beheaded, or imprisoned. And a diet or placitum ■ held by Alberic at this time (August 17,942) shows him supreme in the city and, for the purposes of administering justice, employing in such assemblies both the officials of the papal court, such as the primicerius and secundicerius of the notaries, and the chief nobles of the city, the Vestararius Benedict, Crescentius, and others whose names are of frequent occurrence in Roman affairs of this period.

It would seem that it was about this time also that he renewed his efforts to secure the aid of the Greeks by means of a matrimonial alliance. He felt the necessity of making a counter-move to that of his powerful foe Hugo, who in 942 was himself negotiating for a Greek alliance on a matrimonial basis. Hugo's aim was to marry one of his bastard daughters to the grandson (afterwards Romanus II.) of the Emperor Romanus I.2 Alberic was not a little alarmed when he heard that the emperor was preparing to place at his enemy's disposal ships furnished with the dread Greek fire, and had already sent great presents to the Lombard king. Accordingly, as his wife Alda was dead, he again8 demanded the daughter of Romanus in marriage. As usual, a favourable hearing was seemingly granted to the request.

According to the prescribed etiquette of the Byzantine court, when Alberic's ambassadors arrived at Constantinople, they first offered to the emperor the respects of the Pope and clergy, and then the faithful service of " the most glorious Prince of Old Rome, of his nobles, and of all the people submitted to him." Then the logothete, who received them in the first instance, asked about the health of the most holy Bishop of Rome, " the spiritual father of the emperor," and about that of the Roman clergy ; and

1 Rcgest. Sublacense, p. 202, ap. Gregorovius, Rome, iii. 301.

2 Liut., Antapod., v. 14. "Cf. sup., p. 197.

STEPHEN (VIII.) IX. 217

brought to a conclusion this formal part of the reception of the Roman envoys by polite inquiries about " the most glorious Prince of Old Rome." 1

Altogether his embassy was so favourably received that Alberic, regarding the matter as settled, made extensive preparations for the reception of his expected Greek bride. To attend upon her he gathered into his palace all the most lovely young ladies of the noble families both of Rome and the Sabina. But Alberic and his fair companions waited in vain.2 The Greek princess never came ; no doubt because it was never intended that she should come. The wily Greeks had no intention of offering substantial support to either party. The longer Alberic and Hugo fought, and the more they weakened each other, the better would their interests in south Italy be served.

In the little that history has to tell of the career of Pope Death of

oii« «i 1 • 1 Stephen,

btepnen, there is certainly no sign that he exercised any 942. more civic authority in Rome than his immediate pre- decessors or successors. He was released from his state of dependence by his death, which took place apparently in the month of October 942.

1 All this formality is minutely set forth in the book of court etiquette (De Cerimomis, ii. 47), brought up to date, as is clear from the mention of "the Prince of the Romans," by the Emperor Constantine Porphy- rogenitus. In the following chapter (ii. 48), dealing with addresses of letters, it is laid down that the title of " our spiritual father " is only to be given to the Pope, and not to the other patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem.

2 " Verumtamen," laconically concludes Benedict (c. 34), " ad thalamum nuptiis non pervenit."

MARINUS II.

A.D. 942-946. Sources. — Seven privileges and bulls, ap. P. Z., t. 133.

Marinus SHADOWY and still more shadowy are now growing the nominee of successors of St. Peter. Although a nominee of Alberic, "without whose orders he durst not put his hand to anything,"1 Marinus was a most worthy man. Indeed, there is this to be said in favour of Alberic's otherwise tyrannical domination, viz., that he seems in every case to have appointed to the papal throne men who, if weak, were at any rate good. Marinus, a Roman of the title of St. Ciriacus, was no exception to the rule. He became Pope in October (October 30, according to Duchesne) 942. Marinus Among the pilgrims who are said to have come

and S.

uiric, 909. " to the threshold of the apostles " during the pontificate of Marinus was the famous Udalric or Ulric, sometime bishop of Augsburg.2 But as the visit of Ulric referred to

1 " Electus Marinus pp. non audebat adtingere aliquis extro jussio Alberici principi," Bened., c. 32. It is presumed that by this time the reader will have ceased to be astonished at the Latin of the monk of Soracte.

2 See Butler's Lives of the Saints, vii. 27 flf.

218

MARINUS II. 219

took place in the year 909, it is plain that his biographer l must either have inadvertently written Marinus for Sergius, or have called Marinus Pope in 909, because he afterwards acquired that dignity. It is generally supposed that the latter is the correct explanation.

When Ulric reached Rome, he was well received by Marinus, who asked him of what nationality he was. Told that he was a German of Augsburg, and attached to the household of Adalberon, the bishop of that city, Marinus at once assured him that that prelate was dead, and that he was destined to succeed him. The saint ex- pressed his profound astonishment at what he had heard, and his disinclination to become bishop. "Well," re- plied Marinus, " if you will not accept the bishopric now, when it is intact, you will have to take it when it is in ruins, and you will have to restore it." And so it happened. The diocese was laid waste by the terrible Hungarians, and, on the death of Adalberon's successor, Hiltinus (t923)> Ulric succeeded him.2 Three visits of Ulric to Rome are recorded,3 but only the second could possibly have fallen in the actual reign of Marinus as Pope.

Like his predecessor Stephen IX., Marinus, in a quiet Zeal for re- way indeed, but steadily, worked for the reform of the Church. He continued the appointment of Frederick, archbishop of Mayence, as " vicar and missus " of the Apostolic See throughout Germany and Gaul, " so that he had papal power, if he found any persons whatsoever

1 Gerard, who was ordained priest by Ulric.

2 Gerard, in vit. Udal., c. 1, ap. P. L., t. 135, p. 1012 f.

3 The second, ib., c. 14, is said to have been after 965, when "he was honourably received by Alberic, Prince of the Romans." Now as Alberic died in 954, the second visit of Ulric must have taken place before that event, and so may have taken place in the reign of Marinus. The third visit, ib., c. 21, was about 971, "when gifts of indulgences were granted him." He died in 973.

220 MARINUS II.

deviating from the right path, to summon them to him wheresoever he pleased, to warn and correct them, and to hold synods." l Frederick, like most of the great bishops of his day, was deep in all the great political movements of his age ; but how far he found time to attend to the discipline of his clergy and to the improvement of the moral tone of the people " throughout Germany and Gaul " is a question not easily answered. At any rate, maintaining that it was better to have a few really good monks than many negligent ones, he made a dead set first against the smaller monasteries and then against the larger ones. But there is a suspicion that he did this out of resentment, because he had for a time been imprisoned in the monastery of Fulda on account of some conspiracy against Otho. Despite his intrigues against Otho, however, it may be fairly concluded from the fact of his meriting the con- fidence of two good Popes, that, for the times at least, he was a useful bishop, and contrived, in some way or other, to find opportunity to work for the good of souls. And so the Annals of Hildesheim (an. 954), in record- ing his death, speak of him as a man "of the greatest abstemiousness, and as of tried faith and morality." Even to his successor, who was an illegitimate son of Otho himself, he seems to have been regarded as a worthy man. The last entry in the Annates Augienses'1 (954) records the death of Frederick, " of happy memory," and goes on: "The same year, I, William, unworthy to suc- ceed such a great man {tantce succcssionis indignns), was elected in his place with the consent of the clergy and people of the same holy see," viz. of Mayence.

1 Jaffe, 3631, " Ita ut, si quos invenerit .... deviantes, .... ad se vocare .... corrigere, synodumijue constituere .... potestatem apostolici habeat."

2 Ap. M. G. SS.} i., p. 69.

MARINUS II. 221

While endeavouring to improve discipline in distant Sicus,

i 11 i « • • a t • • i • bishop of

lands through his vicars, Mannus in his own person strove Capua. to amend it nearer home. Sicus, bishop of Capua, had seized a church which his predecessor had given to the Benedictines that they might build a monastery alongside it, and had bestowed it as a benefice on a deacon who was as unworthy a cleric as the bishop himself. When the affair was brought to the Pope's notice, he took occasion from the incident to upbraid the bishop not only for this act of injustice, but also for his ignorance both of sacred and profane literature, and for the company he kept. For Sicus preferred not merely the company of laymen to that of clerics, but even that of the lowest of laymen and the most ignorant of clerics. The Pope decided that the bishop must restore the church forthwith, so that it may no longer be used for disorderly purposes {saltationes et vagationes). Sicus must also cease to make a companion of the said deacon. If he does not obey, he will be deprived of his dignity and excommunicated.1 Whether Sicus had anything to urge against the accuracy of the information, which had been forwarded to the Pope " by a certain learned man," is not known, but the church was no doubt restored.

The interest felt by Marinus in the great monastic Privileges, development which was then in progress is shown by the bulls he issued in favour of various monasteries. Of some of these documents the contents have come down to us. One of the privileges of Marinus deserves to be mentioned, as it serves to show that, though the Popes had at this time no civil power in the more distant parts of what was once their dominion, they had not lost all their property there. It is a privilege addressed to the arch-

1 Jaffe, 3628, or ep. 7, ap. P. L. ; Leo Ost., i. 57, and the notes thereto, ap. R. I. SS., iv. 329.

222 MARINUS II.

bishop of Ravenna "in connection with a portion of the county of Ferrara." x The papal Whether Marinus ever lived in it or not, it is interesting thYipaia" to know that modern archaeological research has revealed the fact that the palace built by John VII. out of the ruins of the " north-eastern section of the Domus Gaiana, which over- looks the Forum and the Sacred Way," was still apparently habitable in his time. " The latest bit of evidence regard- ing the real or nominal occupancy of the Palatine episcopal residence by the Popes came to light November 8, 1883, during the excavation of the house of the Vestals. At the north-eastern corner of the peristyle the remains of a modest mediaeval dwelling were discovered, belonging to a high official of the court of Marinus II. . . . This official must have been in charge of the Pope's rooms which were placed among the ruins of the Domus Gaiana."- Generai From what has been already narrated of Marinus, we can

and work have no difficulty in accepting what is said of him by irmus. Qarcjjnai Baronius,3 though the authority he adduces is no more definite than " an ancient Vatican MS." According to that document, " Marinus gave himself up wholly to the inner life of the Church. He strove to reform both the secular and regular clergy, and devoted himself to the repair of the basilicas and the care of the poor. And by his letters he did all he could to promote the sacred cause of peace amongst Christian princes." Coin. His own position, or want of position, among Christian

princes is shown by his extant coin,4 which, while it bears his own name and that of St. Peter on the obverse, illustrating by this connection his spiritual posi-

1 JafTe\ 3629.

2 Lanciani, The Destruction of Ancient Rome, p. 121,

3 Hist. Eccles., ad an. 943.

4 D. Promis, Monete dei R. P. This work, as we have said before, supplements that of Cinagli.

MARINUS II. 223

tion, bears on the reverse the names of Alberic, Prince, and Rome.

Marinus died in April (Jaffe) or May (Duchesne) 946.

In the middle of the twelfth century, and seemingly by The"Re- Otho, who was bishop of Tivoli in 1160, a collection was Tivoli." made of the chief documents regarding that church. The Marinus 11. quarto volume into which they were formed is remarkable for the number of illuminated miniatures with which it is adorned. It was presented to the Vatican archives by Mario Orsini, who was bishop of Tivoli from 1624 to 1634, and it was first completely edited by Bruzza.1

One of the miniatures represents Pope Marinus II., seated, and giving a privilege to Hubert, bishop of Tivoli. The Pope is represented as clean-shaven and wearing the tonsure. He is clad in a red robe over which is a tunic of a brick-red. A blue chasuble, edged with green lace, com- pletes his costume. He wears the pallium on his shoulders. His feet, shod with red sandals, rest on a yellow cushion. The circular nimbus round his head shows he was dead when the miniature was painted.2

1 In the review " Studi e documenti di storia e diritto," Ann., i., fasc. 1 ff.

2 This paragraph is taken from Battandier, Annuaire pontifical catholique, annee 1904, p. 147 f., Paris. Among the miscellaneous medieval documents which have been published in recent times is a deed wherein, curiously enough, the conditions are sworn to not only in the name of God, but by the good estate {salus) of Pope Marinus II. *' Juratus dico per Deum omnipotentem sancteque sedis apostolice seu salutem uiri bb. et apostolici dni. Marini SS. junioris pape." Ap. Archivio delta R. Soc. Rom. di storia pat, 1889, p. 77. Cf. another document of 918, ap. Muratori, Antiq. Ital., ii. 125, 805, etc. It was quite a common practice in the tenth century.

AGAPITUS II.

A.D. 946-955.

Sources. — Useful now are the historians or biographers of the German Emperor Otho I. Among these mention has already been made of Liutprand, who received from Otho the bishopric of Cremona. Hence his Historia Ottonis and his Legatio are redolent with the praises of his benefactor. Bayet, in the Histoire geniral of Lavisse and Rambaud, a work now very much quoted, says (i. 546) of Liutprand : He " has the soul of the Italian courtier. A shameless flatterer of his masters, passionately spiteful against all whom he thinks he has reason to complain of, an unscrupulous tamperer with the truth, he is nevertheless keen, caustic, and always attractive by the passion, the verve, and some- times by the buffoonery which he puts into his writings." (Cf. Zeller, Hist. d'AIIemagne, ii. 254.) I will not say that such critiques of Liutprand are overdrawn; but, as a friend of Germany, Liutprand meets with no mercy at the hands of a Frenchman.

As Widukind (Witikind), a monk of the Saxon monastery of Corbey, a monastery highly favoured by Otho, speaks of the death of that monarch (973), he must have died somewhat after Liutprand. His Res Gesta Saxonicce (ap. M. G. SS., hi., or P. L.j t. 137) was dedicated to Matilda, the daughter of Otho. His German editor, the learned Waitz, regards the Res Sax. as " one of the most excellent of the sources of mediaeval history," and especially valuable for the times of Otho. For

the work which Otho accomplished in Italy, he is naturally

224

Photo. Alinari.

A section of the frescoes of S. I 'it r in Grado, ihowing the portrait of Agapitus II. See p. 1 16 fT.

AGAPITUS II. 225

not so good an authority as for what was done by him in Saxony.

Though, of course, not in touch with the court as Widukind was, and though the portion of her poem which deals with the interval from 953 to 962 is lost, still the verses of Hrotsvitha, {c. 93o-<r. 1 001), a nun, but not abbess, of Gandersheim, and one of the literary lights of her age, are not without value. Her poem, entitled Carmen de Gestis Oddonis 1. Imperatoris (ap. M. G. SS., in., or P. Z., t. 137), was composed at the request of Otho II., and from such materials as were brought to her by William, archbishop of Mayence, and others connected with the emperor.

In the same folio volume (viz. iii.) of the Monumenta Germanice Historica (or ap. P. Z., t. 139) is the Chronicle of Thietmar (or Ditmar), bishop of Merseburg. Though Thietmar (976-1018) did not write his Chronicle till some forty years after the death of Otho, still, the possibilities of learning the truth which his high birth and position gave him, and his evident candour, make him a useful authority. His Chronicle treats of the times of Henry I., the three Othos, and Henry II. A new edition of it, by Strebitzki, appeared at Leipzig in 1892.

There are twenty-two privileges and letters of Agapitus, ap. P. Z., t. 133.

What we do know of the work of the Roman Agapitus Agapitus

Pope, 946.

and what we are told of his " wondrous sanctity l can only make us regret with Muratori 2 that no biography of him has come down to us. However, that he was consecrated Pope on May 10, 946, is a point on which both JafTe and Duchesne are agreed, and which is established by documentary evidence.

No doubt that which helped Agapitus to accomplish more Peace for

1 By Ruotger (c. 26), a cleric of Cologne, who wrote (c. 966) the Life of Bruno, the brother of Otho I., and who filled the See of Cologne with the greatest distinction. Agapitus is " sanctissimus " in the Sigeric Catalogue.

2 Annal., viii. 500.

VOL. IV. 15

226 AGAPITUS II.

than some of his predecessors was the fact that during his pontificate Rome and its neighbourhood were left free from the visits of armed enemies. But when Gregorovius writes 1 that under him the Papacy " reappears as taking part in matters connected with foreign countries, matters in which, under the immediate predecessors of Agapitus, it had had no share," he is robbing Peter to pay Paul. What has been recorded in the foregoing pages is more than sufficient to show that at no period of the tenth century up to this has the influence of the Papacy been unfelt in the affairs of Europe.

Before the accession of Agapitus, King Hugo was in serious difficulties. Berenger, marquis of Ivrea, the grand- son of the Emperor Berenger, who had married Willa, the niece of Hugo, appeared in arms against his uncle (945). Some five years before, dread of Hugo's jealousy had forced Berenger to fly to the court of Otho. How- ever, no sooner did he descend the Alps with a small army than the lascivious and avaricious Hugo found himself abandoned by all. As a last resort he resigned the crown of Italy to his popular son, Lothaire, and with his money-bags went back to Provence (946), where he died the following year. Among the jottings of news entered by Frodoard under the year 946, we find re- corded the return of Hugo to his Transalpine kingdom, the accession of Agapitus, and the fact that " peace was concluded between the Patrician Alberic and Hugo, king (of Italy)." Berenger For a year or two, with the consent of Berenger and the bert. kings nobility, Lothaire retained the title of king, while Berenger 95o.taly' held its power. This unsatisfactory state of things was terminated in November 950 by the death of Lothaire, poisoned, as some relate, at the behest of Berenger. The 1 Rome, iii. 321.

AGAPITUS II. 227

next month Berenger and his son Adalbert were proclaimed kings of Italy. But the lawlessness of their rule soon raised a hornet's nest about them. The young widow of Lothaire was treated by them with the utmost indignity, and then imprisoned (April 951); justice was sold,1 and papal property seized in the most brigand-like style.2 By Liutprand3 Berenger is lashed in unmeasured terms. Quoting Job (xxxix. 13, 18) he says: "'The wing of the ostrich is like the wings of the heron and of the hawk. . . . When the time comes, she setteth up her wings on high ; she scorneth the horse and his rider.' Whilst Hugo and Lothaire were still to the fore, that great and voracious ostrich was not good, indeed, but it had the semblance of good. But on their death .... how he raised his wings and despised all of us, I have to tell not so much in words as in sighs and groans." Were the words of the evil- tongued Liutprand not supported by those of more reliable men, not much weight could be attached to them ; for he was once in the service of Berenger, and for some cause had left it for that of his enemy Otho.

However, when Adelaide contrived to escape from theotho'sin- clutches of Berenger, all who had a grievance, real or in Italian imaginary, against the two kings of Italy turned their eyes a airs' g2?' to Otho, and to him directed their prayers for help. And Otho was nothing loath to give it. He determined to free Adelaide altogether from the power of Berenger, marry her, and with her to obtain possession of the kingdom of

1 " Eo tempore .... regnavit in Longobardia homo ferus et avarus, et qui omnem justitiam venderet Bernharius (Berengarius).'; Widu- kind, iii. 7. For his treatment of Adelaide see St. Odilo's Epitaphium Adalheidce, c. 3, ap. P. Z,., t. 142.

2 " Ut Berengarius .... aliquantum etiam de terminis S. Petri praedatoria vi sibi arripere praesumpsisset," Translatio S. Epihan., c. 1, ap. M. G. SS., vi.

3 Ant., v. 30.

228 AGAPITUS II.

Italy.1 What he resolved to do, he accomplished. When he entered Italy, opposition melted away before him. In October (951) he was proclaimed king of Italy, and at Christmas he married the attractive Adelaide. But his ambition was not satisfied. He would be emperor. He had given out before he started on this, his first expedi- tion into Italy, that Rome was his goal.2 And so when he found himself so easily master of the north of Italy, he sent the bishops of Mayence (Mainz) and of Coire or Chur to Rome to negotiate for his reception there (952). Through the influence of Alberic, no doubt, who did not want a master, Otho was given plainly to understand that he was not wanted at Rome.3 With Berenger still at large in Italy, and with his own position at home not too secure, owing to rebellious dukes on the one hand and Hungarians on the other, Otho did not at the time feel justified in braving a new foe. He returned to Germany (952), with his own hopes of the imperial crown and those of the Pope for liberty alike temporarily frustrated.

Alberic then, meanwhile, was left in undisturbed posses- sion of his usurped power, at least in so far as external interference was concerned ; and he knew how to put down conspiracy at home with a strong hand.4 His name continued to take the place of the emperor's on the papal coins, and it was he who, in conjunction with St. Odo, abbot of Cluny, took the leading part in promoting monastic re- form in Rome and in its immediate neighbourhood. And

1 These views of Otho are stated in so many words by the continu- ator of Regino, ad an. 951. Cf. the anonymous Life of Otho's saintly mother Matilda, c. 15, ap. P. Z., t. 135.

2 " Cumque eum virtus .... reginae (Adelaide) non lateret, simu- lato itinere Romam profisci (sic) statuit." Widukind, iii. 9. Cf Ditmar, ii. 3.

* Frod. and Herman. Contract, in Chron., ad an. The names of the bishops are to be found in the latter. 4 Benedict, c. 34.

AGAPITUS II. 229

if, as throughout the ninth century,1 the hall in the Lateran palace, to which the presence of the bronze she-wolf, popularly known as the " mother of the Romans," gave the name of ad Lupam, continued to behold the judicial assemblies of the clerical and lay nobility, we may be sure that any decisions they came to were in accordance with the wishes of " the Prince and Senator of all the Romans."

Soon after the departure of Otho from Italy, Berenger Berenger, submissively placed his pretensions in the hands of Otho, of Italy, and received back from him, as his vassal, the kingdom of Italy, less the marches of Verona and Aquileia, which were entrusted to Henry, duke of Bavaria.

Meanwhile, the miseries of Italy continued. Seeing that Otho was fully occupied at home, Berenger wreaked his vengeance for his humiliations on the nobility of Italy, both clerical and lay, thereby simply laying up further trouble for himself.2 And while the Hungarians made a practice at this period of returning from their plundering expeditions by way of the north of Italy, the southern portion of the peninsula was still kept at fever-heat by the warlike struggles of Greek, Saracen, and native prince.

However, as we have said, during all this turmoil in Death of north and south Italy, Rome remained at peace under the 9S4. strong arm of Alberic II. But at length, in the words (c. 34) of Benedict of Soracte, " the glorious prince began to languish." And so, summoning the nobles of Rome before him in St. Peter's, he made them swear, by the side of the Confession of the apostle, that on the death of Agapitus they would elect his son Pope. "We do not doubt the statement," writes Gregorovius : 3 " Alberic's clear intellect

1 "Abebat autem in palatio Lateranensis judices preordinati, per singulos dies, a locus ubi dicitur a Lupa, quod est mater Romanorum," etc. Benedict, c. 24, ad an. 827. Cf. Libell. de imp. potest., ap. P. Z,., t- 1 39, P- 53 ; and Jafife, 2633.

2 Cont. Reg., 952. 3 Rome, iii. 325.

230 AGAPITUS II.

must have recognised that the separation of the temporal power from the Papacy in Rome was impossible for any length of time. In the hope of the intervention of Germany, however, the Papacy had attained a new power under Agapitus, and sooner or later Otho the First must seize the reins of government in Rome. Alberic understood this. . . . He therefore secured dominion to Octavian in thus inducing the Romans to invest him with the papal crown." In the absence of any direct evidence as to Alberic's intellect, and as to the political theories which he adopted, we may take it that these are the views of Gregorovius himself; and we may pause to note that it is as true now as Gregorovius declared it to have been in the tenth century that "the separation of the temporal power from the Papacy in Rome" is impossible.

" Though a cleric," says Frodoard,1 " his son Octavian obtained the princedom (principatuni) in succession to his deceased father Alberic, the Patrician of the Romans." And as Princeps he awaited the death of Agapitus to become head of the Universal Church as well as head of the State of Rome.

The death of Alberic was in many ways a misfortune. During his reign, the Popes, if powerless, were virtuous ; and, if he himself ruled absolutely, he would appear to have ruled justly and firmly. Under his sway the good were free to perform the works of virtue, and the lawlessness of the barons was kept in check. No sooner was his strong arm taken away than violence again stalked abroad, and we find Leo, the abbot of Subiaco, complaining to the Pope "of the great wrongs they had endured since the days when the Lord Alberic, of good memory, departed from this life."2

1 Ann., 954, ap. P. L., t. 133.

2 See the statement of the abbot, which appears as ep. 6 of John XII.

AGAPITUS II. 231

Now that we have reviewed the general political situa- The See of

. . Rheims.

tion in as far as it affected Rome and the Pope, we may direct our attention to the more particular actions in which Agapitus was engaged. Perhaps the most important of these was the question of the See of Rheims. It has been already told how the powerful Heribert, count of Verman- dois, got his child-son elected to the See of Rheims, and how King Rodolf, after he had obtained possession of the archi- episcopal city, forcibly placed Artaud on its ecclesiastical throne. Though somewhat weak in his attachments, Artaud was, in the main, true to the Carolingian line, and supported Louis d'Outre-Mer against his recalcitrant nobles. Naturally, therefore, on every count had he to face the enmity of Heribert. In the struggle between Louis and Heribert with his allies, not a few of the possessions of the See of Rheims fell into the hands of the count of Verman- dois. In the presence of Louis and the bishops who remained true to him, Artaud solemnly excommunicated Heribert for retaining the property " of St. Remy " (939).1 Next year, however, Rheims fell into the hands of the king's enemies, and Artaud found himself incarcerated in a monastery. Attempts were made to force him to resign his claims to the archbishopric; and, according to Richer,2 report had it that he did so on oath. Hugh, his rival, now aged twenty, was ordained priest; and at a council held at Soissons (941), was declared duly elected to the archiepiscopal see and immediately consecrated. Artaud appealed to Rome.3 Whether or not he had any oppor- tunity of getting his case brought properly before the

1 Frod., Ann. ; and Hist. Rem., iv. 27.

2 Hist., ii. 22 : " Atque multis minarum terroribus affectus consentit, juratus etiam, ut fertur, repudium." Cf. Frod., Ann., 941.

3 "Ad sedem Apostolicam eos provocabam." . . . " Vocationem quoque ad sedem A. iterare curavi" — the words of Artaud himself, Hist. Rem., iv. 35.

232 AGAPITUS II.

Pope, certain it is that Hugh procured the pallium from Stephen (VIII.) IX. (942).1 But the fortune of war again turned in favour of Louis, and Artaud was once more in Rheims (946). He was reinstalled by the archbishops of Trier and of Mayence, for Otho was now in alliance with Louis. Hugh, however, took good care that his rights to the See of Rheims were not lost for want of making them known. In accordance, therefore, with instructions received from Rome,2 a council was held in November 947 at Verdun, under the presidency of Robert of Trier. As Hugh would not present himself before this assembly, another synod was assembled early the follow- ing year at Mouzon itself, where he was residing. But after an interview with Robert, Hugh refused to appear even before this council. He forwarded, however, to it by the hands of a deacon a letter, which purported to come from the Pope, and which, without more ado, ordered that the bishopric should be given to Hugh. The assembled prelates, however, decided that it was not the proper thing to pass over a regular commission received by Robert of Trier from Rome in favour of a letter presented by an enemy and rival of Artaud, and that what had been begun in due form, should be also finished in accordance with the canons.3 They further decreed that, till a general (uni- versalis) or national council could be called, Artaud was to retain the see, and Hugh to be regarded as excom- municated. While the latter set the decrees of the council at naught, they were forwarded to Rome. Agapitus at once authorised the calling of such a council (generalis synodus), and sent as his legate to Otho to arrange for its convocation Marinus, bishop of Bomarzo, and librarian of the Holy See. He also wrote himself to various bishops, charging them to be present at the council. Its pro- 1 Frod., Ann. and Hist., iv. 29. 2 Frod., Hist., iv. 34. 3 lb.

AGAPITUS II. 233

ceedings show, further, that the Pope wished it to be a means of helping the unfortunate Louis d'Outre-Mer.

In presence of both Louis and Otho, the famous synod 1 The coun- of Ingelheim was opened in June 948. Ingelheim, which ingeiheim, we have met with before as a villa of the Carolingian kings, 94 ' was on the left bank of the Rhine, some eight miles from Mayence. Not to count the priests and abbots, over thirty bishops, mostly Germans, were present at the council, which, as its Acts and the Annals 2 of the period proclaim, was presided over by the papal legate Marinus. It was the power of Hugh, duke of the Franks, the enemy of Louis, which prevented the presence of many bishops from the dominions of the latter. The proceedings of the council were opened by the reading of the gospel and by prayer. Then Marinus produced his commission, in which it was stated that he had been sent " by the universal Pope " to Germany in order that in every canonical discussion which might arise, he might "by apostolical authority" bind what ought to be bound and loose what needed loosing. Both kings and bishops proclaimed their adhesion to the papal mandate.3

In connection with the first object of the synod, the restoration of Louis, Marinus pointed out that the Pope had written to the people of France to induce them to be

1 On this synod cf. Frodoard (Ann., 948, and Hist. /?., iv. 35), and its Acts, ap. M. G. LL., ii. See also Hefele, vi. 170 f. Richer, ii. 67 ff., follows Frodoard.

2 "Sinodus ad Engilenheim congregata est, cui Marinus legatus apostolicus presedit." Ann. Hildesheimenses, 948. Cf. the better authority of Co?itin. Regin.

3 " Significatum est ... . Marinum ab universali papa tali tenore ad nostros fines directum fuisse, quo in omni ecclesiasticarum legum discussione .... qusecumque Uganda essent, apostolica autoritate ligaret. . . . Hujusmodi affaminis tam salubri missatico .... reges cum pontificibus .... se in omnibus consentire et obedire professi sunt." Labbe, ix., p. 624.

234 AGAPITUS II.

loyal to Louis; and it was decreed (can. i) that in future no one was to dare to assail the royal authority, and that Hugh was to be excommunicated if he did not present himself at the appointed time before a synod and make reparation to Louis. Artaud was then (can. 2) declared lawful archbishop of Rheims, and Hugh excommunicated. After these two most important affairs had been dealt with, the council passed various decrees for the amelioration of discipline with the approval of the papal vicar.1 The synod Through the armed support of Otho, Artaud was restored

of Trier, & ^

948. to his see, and Hugh the Great was summoned to appear be-

fore a synod at Trier (Treves), September 94s.2 Here again Marinus presided, and as Hugh did not appear, he was excommunicated, on the initiative of Otho, till such time as he should make satisfaction before the papal legate. If he failed to do this, he would have to go to Rome for absolution.

Council at To give greater solemnity and effect to the decrees of 9' these two assemblies, Agapitus, in a council held in St. Peter's, confirmed the condemnation of the youthful archbishop, and excommunicated " Prince Hugh till he should make atonement to Louis."3 This settled both questions. Finding his nobility, clerical and lay, falling away from him, Duke Hugh submitted once more to his sovereign (950). " This change in the relations of the duke of France and of the Carolingian (king) was, as in 942, the result of the intervention of the Pope and the mediation of the king of Germany."4

John xii. The death of Artaud, towards the close of 961, caused

962. ' the whole question to be reopened again to the great danger of the Carolingian line. The representatives of the house

1 " A quibus (the whole assembly), autorante et confirmante legato apostolico, capitula subsequentia statuta sunt." Labbe, id.

2 Frod., Ann., 948. Cf. the letter of Marinus, cited by Lauer, Hist, de Louis, p. 186 n., p. 175 n.

1 Frod., 949. 4 Lauer, i/>., 208.

AGAPITUS II. 235

of Vermandois, Albert and Heribert, demanded of Lothaire, who had meanwhile succeeded his father Louis, that their brother Hugh should now be placed in possession of the vacant See of Rheims. Their demand was backed by the powerful support of Hugh Capet.1 Naturally Lothaire did not wish to have the most important see in France in the hands of a hostile faction. To counteract the alliance of Hugh Capet with the family of Vermandois, Lothaire sought the aid of Otho I., and meanwhile caused a synod to discuss the question of the restoration of Hugh. The partisans of the king maintained that a smaller number of bishops could not remove from Hugh the excommunica- tion which had been imposed upon him by a greater number at Mouzon, Ingelheim, etc. It was finally decided to leave the matter in the hands of the Pope.2 John XII., influenced perhaps by Otho, renewed the excommunication against Hugh, first at Rome and then at Pavia (962)? A papal legate brought word of the Pope's action to France. Within a brief space Hugh died of chagrin. Through the influence of the famous Archbishop Bruno, Lothaire's brother-in-law and the adviser of Otho I., Odelric, a canon of the church of Metz, a man both acceptable to Lothaire and endowed with wealth, nobility of birth, and learning, was elected to the vacant see.4 Thus was another source of danger to the successors of Charlemagne removed by Rome. If anything could have preserved the Carolingian line from political extinction, the support of the Popes

1 Frod., Ann., 962 ; Richer, Hist., iii. 15 f.

2 " Relinquitur ratio differenda usque ad interrogationem papae romani." Richer, ib. 16.

3 "Legatio veniens a Johanne papa intimat praefatum Hugonem quondam episcopum tarn ab ipso papa quam ab omni Romano synodo excommunicatum, sed et ab alio synodo apud Papiam celebrate" Frod., ib.

4 Richer, Hist., iii. 17-19.

236 AGAPITUS II.

would have done it. But, despite the continued goodwill

of Rome, the Carolingians could not resist the pressure of

the Robertians, but had to yield to them the pride of place.

Further The other relations of Agapitus with Louis and Otho

intercourse ■•••»» j

with Otho. were of a character more strictly ecclesiastical. He granted a bull in favour of the church of Macon, at the request of the " pious " King Louis, " his dear son " ; l and, in response " to the intervention of our lord the glorious King Otho," 2 he does the same for the nunnery of Essen, now famous for something very different to nuns. We also find him subjecting another monastery simply to Otho himself and to the abbot elected by the monks.3 Agapitus seems to have had great confidence in Otho. This he showed not merely in the last-mentioned bull, but also in the ready way in which he gave him permission to arrange certain bishoprics as he listed. However, the protest of William, archbishop of Mayence, the papal vicar,4 whose jurisdiction would have been curtailed by the carrying out of the schemes of Otho, seems to have rendered this concession abortive.5 Further, to Bruno, archbishop of Cologne, the king's youngest brother, and the Alcuin of the court of Otho, he not merely granted the pallium, but the excep- tional privilege {prater consuetudinem) of wearing it when he chose.6 As far as Bruno was concerned, he well

1 Ep. 15, ap. P. L., t. 133.

2 Jafite, 3635 ; ep. 3. It is interesting to find Agapitus granting privileges to the nunnery of Gandersheim, where the famous Hrotsvitha was writing pious plays in the style of Terence ; id., 3642, or ep. 6.

3 lb., 3649.

4 lb., 3668, where the dignity conferred on Frederick is confirmed to William.

6 B*% 3673-

f' Ruotger, Vita Brunonis, c. 26, ap. SS. rer. Germ, in usutn scholarum. It was becoming that he "cum eis pariter, qui traditam a b. Petro ap. sanam servare (debent) doctrinam, catholics fidei integri- tate, in vera confessione et inviolabili veritate predication is uniri." Ruotger (ib.) calls Agapitus " mirae sanctitatis papam."

AGAPITUS II. 237

deserved honour at the Pope's hands ; for his one desire was to be united in word and deed " with' those who pre- serve the sound doctrine handed down from Blessed Peter the apostle."1 But if Agapitus had foreseen that Otho's dreams of universal dominion would lead him to try to enslave the Church, he would probably not have been so considerate towards him.

Before leaving Otho, a word or two must be said of the Denmark spread of the jurisdiction of the See of Hamburg-Bremen, burg- In his efforts to drive back the pagans, the Danes, the Slavs, and the Hungarians, who pressed him on all sides, Otho in due course came into collision with the Danes under Harold Bluetooth,2 the son of Gorm the Old. The Danish monarch was defeated. With a view to humbling and elevating him at the same time, Otho insisted that he should become a Christian, as Charlemagne had done in the case of Widukind the Saxon, and our own Alfred with Guthrum. The result was in every case satisfactory. Harold remained true to his new faith. " At that time," says3 Adam of Bremen, " Cismarine Denmark (Dania), which the natives call Jutland, was divided (presumably by joint agreement between Harold, Otho, and the Pope) into three bishoprics, and subjected to that of Hamburg. There are preserved in the church of Bremen diplomas of Otho which show that he held the Danish kingdom beneath his sway, so that he even appointed (donaverit) its bishoprics. And among the privileges of the Roman See there may be

1 lb., c. 26. According to the late (he was born about 1140) but accurate Gervase, a monk of Canterbury, in his Actus Pont. Cant., ap. Scriptores X., p. 1644, St. Odo, archbishop of Canterbury, also received the pallium from Agapitus.

2 941-991-

3 Gesta Pontif. Ham., ii. 3, ap. P. L., t. 146. According to the Hist. Olav. Tryg. filii max., c. 60, ap. M. G. SS., xxix., it was Frode VI. who caused three bishops to be consecrated for Jutland, " according to the advice (at radi) of Pope Agapitus " in 948.

238 AGAPITUS II.

found a bull (Jaffe, 3641) in which Pope Agapitus renewed the privileges granted by his predecessors .... to the church of Hamburg, and conceded to Adalgar, its archbishop, the right of consecrating bishops in the Popes' stead as well for Denmark as for the other northern countries " (948).

Before this, another Danish ruler had been in communi- cation with Agapitus. Among those vice-kings whom Gorm the Old (883-941) had striven to bring into subjec- tion to the king of Denmark was Frode VI., vice-king of Jutland. He had been baptized by Unni, and at the suggestion of Archbishop Adalgar had sent to Rome for missionaries for his country. We will give the account of this embassy in the quaint words of Saxo Gram- maticus.1

After speaking of Frode's success in war, Saxo continues : " He also came forward to be baptized with holy water in England, which had for some while past been versed in Christianity. But he desired that his personal salvation should overflow and become general, and begged that Denmark should be instructed in divinity by Pope Agapete, who was then Pope of Rome. But he was cut off before his prayers attained their wish. His death befell before the arrival of the messengers from Rome ; and indeed his intention was better than his fortune, and he won as great a reward in heaven for his intended piety as others are vouchsafed for their achievement."

Some of the letters of Agapitus to different princes of Italy, with which Germany was to be so closely connected for many centuries, shed no little light on the state of the country. When he had to admonish the princes of Bene- ventum and of Capua 2 to restore to certain monks their

1 Gesta Dan., ix., pp. 317-8, ed. Holder. We give Elton's translation, p. 385. Cf. Karup, Hist, de Vtglise cath. en Danemark, p. 26. - Epp. 2, 17.

AGAPITUS II. 239

monasteries or their freedom, or to send back to their monasteries such monks as had fallen away from monastic discipline ; and when he had to condemn x simoniacal intruders into the sees of Termoli and Trivento, he evidently found South Italy in as unsatisfactory a condition ecclesiastically as it was politically.

In attending to reform nearer home, following the policy The abbey of his predecessors in showing well-deserved honour to the monks of the Cluniac reformation, he determined to place St. Paul's, outside-the-walls, in their hands. Accordingly he wrote to Einold, the abbot of Gorze in Lorraine, to send him some religious. The request was duly attended to.

It is, perchance, to go beyond our premises directly to connect the monks of Gorze, an abbey originally founded by St. Chrodegang, bishop of Metz, with the reformation of Cluny. At any rate, Agapitus'was bent on drawing his supply of monks from a particularly pure source. And how hard it was to find a pure source may be estimated (allowing for a little exaggeration) from a remark of the biographer of Blessed John of Gorze, that " there was not a monastery in all the Cisalpine countries, and scarcely one in Italy, in which there was due observance of rule" (c. 20). (j-974). At the beginning of the tenth century Gorze was almost in ruins. Adalberon, bishop of Metz, restored it, and put it into the hands of some pious ecclesiastics {933), among whom were Einold and the Blessed John de Vendiere. He soon gave them the religious habit, and their house, in a very short time, acquired a great reputation for virtue.

The position of the Pope in Rome is very plainly, if incidentally, shown by the contemporary author of the Life of Blessed John (f974)> from whom we have these par- ticulars, when he says that Agapitus proposed to intro- 1 Jaffe, 3634, 3664, 3636. Ep. 4.

955

240 AGAPITUS II.

duce the monks from Gorze, "with the help of King Alberic."1 Coins of Two coins of this Pope, preserved in the Vatican Cabinet,

Agapitus. ,, , , , ,

tell the same tale of the rope s loss of supreme temporal authority in Rome. Though both coins bear the name of Agapitus, that of Alberic is equally prominent upon them.2 His death, Both Duchesne and Jaff6 are agreed that Agapitus died in December 955. His tomb was in the Lateran basilica, " behind the apse," and close to those of Leo V. and Paschal II., as John the Deacon tells us3 in his descrip- tion of the Lateran. Though it is thought that from the time of John X. the Popes were buried, not in the Vatican as formerly, but in the Lateran, no express mention of the place of burial of those between John X. and Agapitus II. is to be found.

1 The Pope asks for monks "quos in monasterio b. Pauli, ad monasticum ordinem transferendo cum auxilio regis Albrici collocet." Vit. Joan. Gorziensis, ap. M. G. SS., iv., 352 ; P. Z., t. 137, c. 53, p. 268, in Jaffa's abridgment.

2 Promis, Monete dei R. P., p. 88. Provana, however, from the fact that some of Alberic's coins bear a Pope's name and some do not, concludes that he had less power later on than at first. Studi sovra la storia d Italia, p. 143.

3 Ap. Migne, P. L., t. 194, p. 1 551 ; or ap., #., t. 78, p. 1386.

JOHN XII

* A.D. 955-964.

Sources. — The catalogue which does duty as the continuation of the Liber Pontificalis is fuller than usual in its notice of this Pope. But whether it has come down to us in as complete a form as it was originally written, or whether, indeed, there may not have been some more elaborate continuation of the L. P. than the catalogue, is open to some doubt; for Benedict of Soracte (c. 37) refers his readers for details of the death of John XII. to the Libellus episcopalis, while in the catalogues no such details are to be found. " De accidentia illius (Johannes XII.)," he writes, " et morte in libellum episcopalem repperitur."

Some sixteen of his letters, etc., are collected in P. Z., t. 133.

It is unfortunate that the principal data from which a Means of judgment has to be formed of the character of John XII. {LSchar-° are supplied from sources either actually German, as the j^ xn. Continuation of the Chronicle of Regino of Priim, or written in the interests of Germany, as the productions of the "malicious Liutprand," to use a correct expres- sion of Gregorovius. There cannot be a doubt that John XII. was anything but what a Pope, the chief pastor of Christendom, should have been. Between the vindictive Liutprand, who recorded all that he had picked

up from the gossip of the spiteful or of the ignorant, VOL. IV. 241 16

242 JOHN XII.

and Frodoard, who has recorded practically nothing1 to the detriment of John, there are other contemporary authors who have said enough to let us see that John was far from being an exemplary pontiff. Such are the catalogues, Benedict of Soracte, and the anonymous author of the Chronicle of .Salerno. John is supposed also to have fallen under the lash of Ratherius of Verona. If that zealous bishop really did scathe John XII. for immorality, he certainly respected him as head of the Church. To Ratherius John is : " The arch- bishop of archbishops, and, if any man ought to be so designated, Universal Pope." 2 And if towards the close of John's reign Ratherius could not refrain from denouncing him, he at any rate did not do so by name. Perhaps this was because he had been kindly treated by John. He wonders, however, at the general contempt of the canons displayed by all, " from the laymen, up, unfortunately, to the supreme pontiff." This expression of his occurs in a work, De contemptu canonum (n. 6), published in the beginning of the year 964. And again,3 in order to show that the possibility of reform depended largely on the moral character of those in power, he asked what improve- ment could be looked for if one who was leading an immoral life, who was bellicose and perjured, and who was devoted to hunting, hawking, gaming, and wine, were to be elected to the Apostolic See.

1 The only words in Frodoard that reflect on the character of John XII. are that "he was blamed for his irreligious life"— quia de inreligiositate sua corripiebatur (Ann., 965) — and that too by Otho, whose plans were the better served when John was made to appear as black as possible.

2 Ep. ad Joan. XII., first written to Agapitus II., c. 951 ; and then, with a simple change of inscription, sent to John XII. " Archiprassulum archiepiscope, et, si de ullo mortalium jure dici possit, universalis Papa nominande."

3 De contempt, can., n. 12, ed. Verona?, 1765. Cf. n. 19.

JOHN XII. 243

However, whether this picture was drawn from life or not, it is certain that those who brought the most definite charges against John XII. were partisans of Otho and the Germans. Hence their stories to his detriment have been viewed with suspicion, and that not merely in modern times, but in the Middle Ages, when historical criticism was not much in vogue, and, moreover, by Germans themselves. The worthy bishop, Otho of Frising (-f-i 1 58), even though disposed somewhat to favour the Empire in its struggle with the Papacy,1 remarks in his Chronicle (vi. 23) : "I have found it stated in certain chronicles, but in such as were written by Germans {sed Teutonicorum), that John XII. lived in a blameworthy manner, and that there were frequent meetings of bishops and others on this subject." This Otho goes on to declare it hard to believe, on account of the privilege bestowed on St. Peter of resisting the gates of hell. While realising that our Lord's promise to St. Peter bestowed upon him not impeccability but infallibility, we may agree with Otho that what he read in the German chronicles is hard to believe, not because any impeccability was granted to St. Peter or his successors, but because it was written by German authors anxious to make out the best case for Otho.

While it is certain that John was the son of Alberic, it Birth- is supposed that Alda, daughter of Hugo of Provence, was SfajCohn.tC' his mother. Alberic married Alda in 936, as we know from the Annals of Frodoard, and the same is thought to be established from some words of Benedict, if anything can be deduced with certainty from his barbarous phrases.2

1 So notes the learned editor of Otho's Chronicle, p. xxv., in Pertz's reprint.

2 " Genuit (Alberic) ex his principem ex concubinam filium, imposuit eis nomen Octabianus " (c. 34). As he had just been speaking of Lombard and Transalpine kings, the phrase ex his is supposed to refer

244 J0HN XII.

If, then, John was the son of Alberic and Alda, he was only eighteen when he was elected Pope. But if the words of Benedict have to be strictly interpreted, and he was the son of some concubine of Alberic, then he was probably older. A contemporary painting, indeed, represents him as quite a middle-aged man in the year 960; for it was in that year we are assured that was painted the picture which formerly adorned the old sacristy of the Lateran basilica^ and which was copied by Cardinal Rasponi, and then in- serted by him in his history of that chnrch. The Pope, who is represented as bearded and as clad in cassock, tunic, and dalmatic, is being invested with a large chasuble covered with small Greek crosses.1

Alberic's ordinary residence was near the basilica of SS. Philip and James, known as that of The Apostles, and appears to have been situated where now stands the Palazzo Colonna. And so in the catalogues John is spoken of as belonging to the region of the Via Lata, the aristocratic quarter that was situated between the Quirinal Hill and the Campus Martius. Elected We have already seen how Prince Alberic, on his death-

ope, 955- ke(^ ma(je h a|j tne Roman nobles " promise that on the death of Agapitus they would elect his son, the young Octavian, to succeed him. They were as good as their word, and the youth was consecrated on December 16, 955,2 taking the name of John XII. From the Sigeric catalogue it appears that he had been cardinal-deacon not of the title

to Hugo of Provence, and hence to his daughter Alda. It has been suggested that she may have been called a concubine because of some canonical impediment which stood in the way of her marriage with Alberic ; or perhaps, more simply, because of some confusion on the part of Benedict. Sometime, indeed, in the Latin of this age concubina was used for a wife— at least for a sort of morganatic wife. Cf. Ducange, in voce.

1 Cf. Battandier, Annuaire pont., 1904, p. 150.

■ " Suggerentibus sibi Romanis." Frod., Ann., 954.

JOHN XII. 245

(presbyterial) but of the deaconry, S. Maria in Dominica or Domnica (or in Ciriaca, its Greek equivalent), so called from its occupying the site of the house of S. Ciriaca.1 It is on the Celian Hill, not far from S. Stefano Rotondo. In temporal concerns the new Pope made use of the signature Octavianus, and in spiritual of John. This custom of using sometimes their family, and sometimes their assumed, name is still observed by the Popes.

Octavian is generally credited with being the first Pope Changes

& J & r t his name.

who changed his name on his election to the pontifical throne. Though to take a new name on their accession became more or less customary soon after the time of John XII., he was not the first Pope so to alter his name. It had already been done by a namesake of his, John II. (533-535), who when a simple priest had been known as Mercury.2

Apart from grants of privileges, among the first acts First acts recorded of John is the dispatch of a letter3 to William of reign. Mayence, the papal legate in Germany, in reply to one which had been sent to his predecessor. John sympathises with the archbishop in his troubles, declares that he will have a care of the honour due to him, and exhorts him boldly to assail those who contumaciously wish to lead a bad life, and devastate the churches of God. He expresses a great wish to be informed of all that was going on " in the parts of the Gauls and Germany."

Writing (657) to another German archbishop, Henry of Trier, while granting him the use of the pallium, he exhorts* him to a good life. Equally significant is his confirmation {958) of the possession of the monastery of Subiaco. This

1 According to Marucchi, Basiliques> p. 2 1 7, a more probable deriva- tion is from Dominicwn, an appellation at one time applied to titular churches.

2 Grisar, Anal. Romana, i. 150. 3 Jaffe, 3674. 4 lb., 3682.

246 JOHN XII.

he did on condition "that every day by priests and monks should be recited, for the gcod of our soul and the souls of our successors, a hundred Kyrie-eleisons and a hundred Christe-eleisons, and that thrice each week the priests should offer the Holy Mass to Almighty God for the absolution of our soul and those of our successors." If John was bad himself, he had no intention of letting others do wrong, and showed himself fully alive to the value of prayer.

But a quiet life was not for John XII. For some cause, unknown to us — no dcubt to recover the property or territory at one time belonging to the Holy See — he took up arms, and led an expedition against the princes of Beneventum and Capua. Not perhaps unnaturally, as a southerner, the author of the Chronicle of Salernum,1 from whom alone we have these facts, and who, moreover, was not very discerning? puts the blame of the war on the Pope, " a youth, and given up to the vices thereof." John marched south at the head of a body of Tuscans and Spoletans, as well as Romans. To strengthen their position the attacked princes contrived to secure the support of Gisulf, prince of Salernum, who is highly praised for his valour and military skill by our anonymous chronicler. The mere rumour of the approach of this renowned warrior was enough to put the papal army to flight, and to make it return to its own territories. Struck by the power of Gisulf, the Pope decided to make an alliance with him. The chronicler tells us how the two met at Terracina, and how the Romans, astonished at the display of power made by Gisulf, ex- claimed that the sight showed them that his greatness was even in excess of what report had declared it to be. Though we are informed that a treaty was made between John and

1 Ap. R. I. SS., ii. p. ii. p. 280. " Dum esset adolescens, atque hujus- modi vitiis deditus," etc.

2 Chroniclers of Italy, Balzani, p. 118.

JOHN XII. 247

Gisulf, nothing is known as to its terms. However, from the fact that, whereas in the Donation of Louis the Pious (817) mention is made of the papal patrimony of Salernum, but in those of Otho I. and Henry II. (1020) it is not alluded to, Fedele infers that the sacrifice of this patrimony was the price paid by John for an understanding with the strong prince of Salernum.1

About this time (viz. 960) John took a step which Embassy very materially altered the state of things. By his cruelty 960. and the avarice of his wife, Willa, Berenger, the vassal king of Italy, made himself odious to Pope, bishop, and noble alike.2 Accordingly a general appeal for help against him was made to Otho. He was not only ap- proached by legates of the Pope, by Walpert, archbishop of Milan, and others, " but almost all the counts and bishops of Italy, by means of letters or envoys, begged him to come and free them."3 The papal envoys bade Otho either give up his patriciate or protectorate of Rome altogether, or come and help them.4

Free now, after his many wars against enemies at home Otho enters and abroad, to attend to the affairs of Italy in person, Otho, " the warlike soldier of the Church," accepted their invita- tion and entered the country (961). He had previously taken the precaution of associating his little son Otho

1 I conti del Tuscolo ed i principi di Salerno, p. 9 ff., ap. Archivio delta R. Soc. Rom. di Stor. Pat., 1905.

2 Coniin. Reg., 952.

3 lb., 960. Cf. Liutprand, Hist. Oit., c. 1. The envoys asked help " a sanctissimo Ottone.)' The bishop's friends were all saints !

4 So assures us the author of the Translatio S. Epiphan., c. 2, ap. M. G. SS., iv. p. 248, who wrote after 984. According to him, Berenger too was avaricious : " Avaritias exarsit aestu, ut pecunia captus .... etiam de terminis S. Petri praedatoria vi sibi arripere praesumpsisset." John bids Otho " ut aut patriciatu Romanae urbis, quae sibi a majoribus suis competebat, descisceret, vei fessis eorum rebus succurreret. Accingitur .... communi suorum consensu .... bellicosus ecclesiarum miles contra apostolicum hostem."

248 JOHN XII.

with him in his kingdom. This time also, just as on the occasion of his former entry into Italy, no re- sistance was offered him. Berenger and his adherents fled, and shut themselves up in strong castles, and the victorious German marched to Rome. There he arrived on January 31, 962. He had sworn that, if received in the city, he would not interfere with the Pope's rights therein. According to the form preserved by Bonizo of Sutri,1 the oath he had taken ran thus : " To thee, the Lord Pope John, I, King Otho, promise and swear, by the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, by the wood of the life-giving cross, and by these relics of the saints, that, if by the will of God I come to Rome, I will exalt to the best of my ability the Holy Roman Church and you its ruler ; and never with my will or at my instigation shall you lose life or limb or the honour which you possess. And without your consent never, within the city of Rome, will I hold a placititm (plea) or make any regulation which affects you or the Romans. Whatever territory of St. Peter comes within my grasp, I will give up to you. And to whomsoever I shall entrust the kingdom of Italy, I will make him swear to help you as far as he can to defend the lands of St. Peter." His Encouraged by these promises, and, no doubt, like the

imperial

coronation, rest of the Romans, duly impressed by the king's fierce soldiery ("erat enim," writes Benedict, c. 36, "aspectus eorum orribilis . . . . et ad prcelium ut ferro stantes"), John bestowed " the glory of the imperial crown " upon Otho and his wife Adelaide in St. Peter's on February 2, g62.2

1 Ad amicum, L. iv., ap. Watterich, i. 729.

3 Ann. Sangall. Maj., 692 ; Contin. Reg., 962. " Rex .... a Johanne .... imperator et Augustus vocatur et ordinatur," Vita Mathildis, c. 21. The life of Matilda, Otho's mother, was written before 1012 ; Ann. Ottenburani, an. 962 (M. G. SS.t v.), " Otto rex con- secratione Johannis Papac imperator Romse factus est."

JOHN XII. 249

Though Frodoard l and others speak of the cordial recep- tion accorded to Otho, a German chronicler 2 tells a story, and it is probably no more than a story, to the effect that Otho on this memorable occasion thus addressed his sword-bearer Ansfried : — " When this day I pray before the sacred shrine of the Apostles, do you hold your sword over my head all the time. For I know that my ancestors have often had good reasons to suspect the good faith of the Romans. And it is for the wise man by forethought to anticipate difficulties while yet they are afar, that they may not overwhelm him by taking him unawares." True or false, the story illustrates the fact that at the time of their imperial coronation in Rome, the German monarchs had always to show that they possessed the power of the sword. There was always in the Eternal City a very strong party which objected to the presence of the German king in their midst, and it seldom, if ever, failed to make its power felt, either at the time of the coronation itself or soon after. And on the present occasion we shall see that no sooner was Otho's back turned on Rome than it made its influence manifest at once.

Meanwhile, however, the act of John had renewed the "The Holy Roman Empire in the West.3 Through him " the Holy Empire Roman Empire of the German nation " came, into being, and German that chain was forged which was to bind Germany and Italy na together for centuries. Once more the affairs of Christendom were regarded as in proper hands. In theory at least, all ac-

1 Anna/., 962. Cf. Ann. Altahenses Majores, an. 962, Oddo .... imperator effectus est cum summo Romanorum tripudio ; L.P., etc.

2 Thietmar, iv. 22.

3 " Nunc vero Dei operante dementia charissimus et Christianissimus Alius noster Otto, devictis barbaris gentibus .... ut ad defensionem S. Dei ecclesiae .... per nos a b. Petro .... susciperet coronam, summam .... adiit sedem ; quern .... in imperatorem cum b. Petri benedictione unximus." Ep. 12.

25O JOHN XII.

knowledged the supremacy of the Pope in matters spiritual, and that of the emperor in matters temporal. And though in practice turbulent bishops or nobles did not hesitate, as before, to oppose the authority of either or both ; and though, indeed, the " two swords " themselves, i.e., the spiritual weapons of the Pope and the civil might of the emperors — were often crossed, still there can be no doubt that the grand idea of Pope and emperor, a supreme spiritual and a supreme temporal head of the Christian commonwealth, had an immense effect in the uplifting of Europe. With such ideals, narrow views could not but broaden ; and it was difficult for such as put themselves in opposition to them to avoid not merely being regarded as in the wrong, but, in secret at least, thinking themselves in the wrong. It was the common possession of one grand ideal in religion and in politics that knit Europe together, and not only made possible such enterprises as the Crusades, but deepened such important fundamental con- ceptions as the brotherhood of nations and of man.

But to return to John and Otho ; for with Otho of Frising l I may say that it is my object rather simply to relate the facts of history than to unfold their causes and results. The need of an accurate narration of them as far as the Papacy is concerned can scarcely be questioned ; for, on the basis of a very imperfect knowledge of the facts of the history of the Popes, new theories are con- stantly being erected. And it is hard to see how a building can be stronger than its foundations. Mutual The coronation of Otho was accompanied by mutual con-

b5Jw«nnt cessions on the part of the Pope and the emperor. John Tm^ro"!1 and the whole nobility of the city promised on oath, " over donation tne most precious body of St. Peter," to remain true to of otho. Otho, and never to help Berenger and Adalbert; while the

1 Chron., vi. 23.

JOHN XII. 251

emperor not only gave the Pope many splendid pre- sents, but " restored his own " to him ;x i.e., by special deed of gift, of which a contemporary copy is still extant, he re- newed the Donation of Charlemagne. This contemporary document, whether original or a copy, has been made the subject of what has been rightly called a " magisterial inquiry " by Professor Sickel of Vienna — the same author who made the searching investigation into the Liber Diurnus. With the permission of Leo XIII., of glorious memory, he was allowed to examine the diploma, and to make a photograph of it.2 " It is written in italics of tenth-century character, with ornaments in harmony ; and it is written with gold ink on purple vellum. The professor does not regard this document to be strictly the original, but a copy executed in the Imperial Chancery ; but its lavishly splendid get-up suggests that it was made for a special purpose. Hence he holds the Vatican document to be an official copy, intended to be laid on the Confession of St. Peter."3 Although this document is dated February *3> 962, Duchesne4 regards it as a copy of an original of that date drawn up a year later. To this he is moved by the mention in it of " our venerated lord and spiritual father Leo." With others he thinks that such a form of expression could only be used of a contemporary pontiff, and that consequently it must refer to Otho's Pope, viz. Leo VIII. However this may be, the authenticity of Otho's diploma may be said to be now completely established. It renews the grants of territory and patrimonies of the preceding donations ; and among the patrimonies it may be noted that the ancient one of Sicily, " if God shall deliver it into

1 Liutprand, Hist., c. 3 ; Cont. Reg., 962.

2 Das privilegium Otto I.fiirdie romische Kirche, mit einen facsimile. Innsbruck, 1883.

3 Dubli?i Review, xi., p. 236.

4 Les premiers temps de Vetat pont., p. 179.

252 JOHN XII.

our hands,"1 is mentioned. By this donation there was guaranteed to the Popes all the land between a southern line, drawn from Naples to Capua and on to the mouth of the Trinius (Trigno), and a northern one drawn from Luna, to include Venetia and Istria, by Berceto, Parma, Reggio, and Monselice. This latter line is the one which we have quoted in a preceding volume from the Liber Pontificalis as showing the limit of the original grant of Pippin, and concerning which it has been noted 2 " that the claims made by the Pope at different times never went beyond" it. The diploma goes on to assure freedom of election to the papal throne, " according to the pact of Pope Eugenius," but insists that the elect be not consecrated before he has made the promise to preserve the rights of all, which our venerated lord and spiritual father Leo is known to have done of his own accord, in the presence of our wissi, of our son (Otho II.) and of the generality {universce generalitatis). The remaining articles of this document treat of the administration of justice ; and, though they are on the same lines as those in the pact between Eugenius and Lothaire, just mentioned, they can scarcely be reconciled with the terms of Otho's oath to the Pope. He had sworn not to interfere with the papal government of Rome; and yet the clauses of the concordat of 824, which practically limited the Pope's jurisdiction, were reintroduced into his privilege.3

John XII. was very far from entering into immediate

1 " Necon patrimonium Sicilian, si Deus nostris illud tradiderit manibus," ap. Theiner, Cod. Diplom. domin. temp. S. Sedis, i. p. 4. Cf. Liutprand, Legal., c. 17, "Quicquid in Italia, sed et in Saxonia, Bagoaria, omnibus domini mei (Ottonis) regnis est, quod ad app. beatorum ecclesiam respicit, SS. App. vicario contulit."

2 By Miss Eckenstein, who is responsible for the letterpress and map of Italy of this period in Poole's Historical Atlas of Modern Europe.

3 Cf. Fisher, The Medieval Empire, ii. 201.

JOHN XII. 253

possession of all the territories made over to him by the Donation of the emperor. Of some of them the Popes were never to have control ; and it was to be long enough before they exercised jurisdiction, direct or indirect, even over the greater part of them. However, during the reign of an emperor at once well disposed and powerful, there is no doubt that the Popes even of this age exercised control in the exarchate. The first of the letters of John XIII. in Migne's (t. 135) collection of them, is a charter in favour of the clergy of Bologna, by which John confirmed a privilege in their behalf which they had obtained from Leo V., and which exempted them from the payment of all public taxes ("ut nullam donationem vel redditum publicum facerent"). He enumerated the dues they were to be free from. They were to pay neither " portaticum, neque ripaticum, aut teloneum, sive ostaticum, neque paratam vel sacramentum." Some of these taxes were dues levied on vessels, others were feudal dues. In either case it is plain that they were taxes which only the civil ruler could remit. But when there was no powerful and friendly sword-arm to support the pacific arm of the Popes, their power at this period in the exarchate must have been even more nominal than in Rome.

Before Otho left Rome, he induced the Pope to fall in Privileges

.,,... .... , granted at

with his views in connection with various matters regard- otho's ing the Church in Germany. To curtail the power of the reque£ archbishop of Mayence, or for the better propagation of the faith among the Slavs, as the Pope's bull states, he induced John to make Magdeburg into an archbishopric, and Merseburg into one of its suffragan bishoprics.1 Under the same influence the Pope granted the pallium to

1 Ann. Saxo., 962 ; ep. 12 ; JafYe, 3689. In granting the pallium to Henry of Trier, he says that he ought to have given a fuller exposition of his faith. /#., 3691.

254 JOHN XII.

Archbishop Frederick of Salzburg, and threatened the de- posed prelate Herold with excommunication if he did not refrain from saying Mass.1 Otho leaves It would seem from the Book of the Popes that before February. Otho left Rome, he made strong representations to John ("who passed his whole life in vanity and adultery") to induce him to amend his life. But whether these expos- tulations were the same as some that Liutprand records he made later, they were equally without effect. At any rate Pope and emperor parted (February 14) apparently good friends ; the one to see to the final crushing of Berenger and his party, and the other to the final crushing of Hugh of Vermandois. For on the death of his successful rival Artaud, Hugh had made another effort to secure the See of Rheims. But he again failed, and was excommunicated by John in a synod at Rome.2 John in Ecclesiastical affairs, however, do not seem to have had

wXthe10" much attraction for John XII. Pleasures and politics were kings." more to his taste; and to both he gave himself up on the departure of Otho. Finding that the powerful emperor was going to prove a greater check upon him than Berenger and Adalbert could be, he opened negotiations with the latter, who was wandering about trying to get help from any quarter. At any rate it is Liutprand's version of the affair that it was the Pope who first began to treat with Adalbert. The more sober narrative of the continuator of Regino,3 however, would lead us to believe that it was rather the youthful inexperience of John which was prevailed upon by Adalbert. It is most unfortunate that for all the details of the relations between John and

1 Jaflte, 3689, p. 38.

2 Frodoard,.4«//., 962. Cf. Les derniers Carolingiens, by Lot, p. 38.

3 An., 963. " Romanum etiam pontificem multipliciter in suum adju- torium sollicitavit."

JOHN XII. 255

Otho we have to depend wholly upon the narrative of Liutprand, the latter's parasite. And one is disposed to believe that his partial narrative has not only almost necessarily affected modern historians, but has powerfully influenced those of his own time to the detriment of the truth.

Word of John's attitude could not fail to reach the ears John and of Otho. He at once sent to inquire into what was really the position of affairs in Rome. He was informed that the Lateran was a brothel ; that respectable women of foreign nations were afraid to come to Rome on pilgrimage on account of the lascivious conduct of the Pope; that the churches were all falling to ruins ; and, in order that he might continue to do as he listed with impunity, that John was in negotiation with Adalbert. Needless to say that all this is from Liutprand,1 and that if such things were ever told to the envoys of Otho, they must have been looking for gossip. The historians of foreign nations (always excepting those of Germany) say nothing about the infamies of John, and the churches must have gone to decay of set purpose, when such wholesale ruin was produced in some six years ! When Otho heard these stories he remarked : " He is only a boy, and will easily be changed by the example of good men. When I have mastered Berenger, I will turn my attention to the improve- ment of the Pope." 2

Accordingly, Otho betook himself to Umbria to besiege Berenger in the castle of St. Leo, in the district of Monte Feltro. Thither too were sent to the emperor by John the protoscriniarius Leo, afterwards the antipope Leo VIII., and one of the most illustrious nobles of Rome. The ambassadors were instructed to assure the emperor that, if the Pope had sinned through youth, he was going to 1 Hist, c. 4. 2 lb., 5.

256 JOHN XII.

live differently, but at the same time to protest against his receiving into favour Bishop Leo and the cardinal- deacon John, who had proved unfaithful to the Pope, and against his action in causing certain cities to take the oath of fidelity to himself and not to the Pope. To these charges the emperor retorted that, before he could restore the cities to the Pope, he had first to get possession of them himself; that as for Leo and John, he had heard that they had been seized on their way to Constantinople, whither they had been sent by the Pope against the emperor's interests ; l and that, moreover, others had been seized on their way to stir up the Hungarians against him (Otho). Liutprand himself, who tells us all this, and others were then dispatched to Rome to offer to prove the inno- cence of the emperor by oath or trial by battle. They met, however, with a cold reception ; and, after a few days, were sent back to Otho in company with two envoys from the Pope, John, bishop of Narni, and the cardinal-deacon Benedict, both of whom afterwards filled the papal chair. Adalbert in They had no sooner left Rome than Adalbert was ad- Rome, 963. mittecj into the c-lty ^ john (963). This was more than

Otho could endure, and as soon as the heats of summer were over he marched on the Eternal City. At first John thought of resistance, and appeared in helmet and cuirass. But the power of Otho was evidently irresistible, and, gathering together much of the treasure of St. Peter's, he fled with Adalbert, apparently to Tibur (Tivoli).

When master of Rome, the emperor resolved to reduce

1 From Liutprand, Hist., c. 6. This can scarcely be true, as, accord- ing to Liutprand himself, when the cardinal-deacon John fell into the Pope's power, he cut off his right hand, ib., c. 19. According to Bene- dict (c. 35), whose narrative is here specially confused, it was a certain Azzo whose hand, " cum quo brebe scribebat," was cut off, while John had his nose cut off. According to Benedict, the one aim of John and Azzo was to bring Otho into Italy, that he might dethrone the wicked Pope.

JOHN XII. 257

the Papacy to the same state of dependency on himself as his own German episcopacy. Though strong, the papal party in Rome dared not make resistance, and Otho exacted from all the preposterous promise that they would neither elect nor consecrate a Pope without his consent.1

As the details of what followed the emperor's arrival in Council Rome are only to be found in Liutprand, it may be worth John. while to quote 2 his exact words, so that the exaggerations of this author — who was one of John's would-be judges — may be the more easily noted.

" After three days, at the request of the Roman bishops and people, a large assembly (conventus) was held in the Church of St. Peter ; and with the emperor sat the arch- bishops : from Italy the deacon Rodalph, representing Ingelfred, patriarch of Aquileia, whom a sudden illness had carried off, Walpert of Milan, Peter of Ravenna ; from Saxony, Adeltac, the archbishop (of Hamburg), Landohard, bishop (of Minden) ; from France (Franconia), Otker, bishop of Spires ; from Italy, Hubert of Parma, Liutprand of Cremona." Then follows a long list of Italian bishops, of cardinals, of officials of the papal court, and of Roman nobles, and "Peter, who was called Imperiola (or de Imperio), representing the people (ex plebe), with all the Roman militia.

"These therefore being present, and keeping perfect silence, the holy emperor began thus : ' How right it would be that the Lord Pope John should be present at so dis- tinguished and holy a council ! But we ask you, O holy Fathers, who have had life and business in common with him, why he refused to join such an assembly?' Then

1 Liut., Hist. c. 8. "Jurantes, numquam se papam electuros aut ordinaturos praeter consensum .... imp. Ottonis." Cf. Cont. Reg.,

963-

2 lb., 9 f. Balzani's translation {Chroniclers of Italy, p. 128 f.) is followed in the main.

VOL. IV. 17

258 JOHN XII.

the Roman bishops and cardinal-priests and deacons with the whole populace replied : ' We wonder that your most holy prudence should want us to inquire into this matter, which is not unknown to the inhabitants of Iberia, Baby- lon, or India.'1 . . . The emperor answered: 'It appears to us just that the accusations should be set forth one by one ; then what we should do can be decided on by common advice.' Then the cardinal-priest, rising up, bore witness that he had seen him celebrate Mass without communicating. John, bishop of Narni, and John, the cardinal-deacon, declared that they saw him ordain a deacon in a stable, and out of the appointed times." Others accused him of simony, of consecrating a child of ten years as bishop of Todi, of adultery, of converting the Lateran palace into a bad house, of hunting publicly, of mutilating men, of arson, and of wearing armour. " All declared — clergy as well as laity — that he had drunk wine in honour of the devil. They said that, in playing dice, he had invoked the assistance of Jove, Venus, and other demons. Finally, they declared that he did not even celebrate matins or the canonical hours, nor bless himself with the sign of the cross."2

1 There is obviously very much of Liutprand in all this.

2 This is not the last time that such a farrago of charges against a Pope will be forthcoming to meet the convenience of a powerful enemy. However, in this instance, they are in the main supported by the testimony of Benedict (c. 35) ; unless, indeed, he has drawn his information from Liutprand. In relating the doings of Otho, Benedict is confused, even for him. The Cont. Reg. mentions the synod at which John was deposed, but not the crimes related of him by Liutprand. At the close of her poem on Otho, Hrotsvitha simply tells of him :

" Qualiter et recti compunctus acumine zeli Summum pontificem, quxrdam perversa patrantcm Ejus nee monitis dignantem cedere crebris, Sedis apostolicae fraudari fecit honore, Constituens alium, rectoris nomine dignum."

JOHN XII. 259

Instead of proceeding to say that Otho did not under- stand Latin, the adroit flatterer, remarking that Otho knew that the others did not understand German {loquela Saxonicd), goes on to say that the emperor ordered him to remind the assembly in the emperor's name that the great are often defamed by the envious, and that hence they must not bring baseless charges against the Pope. Then the whole assembly exclaimed, " as one man," that they prayed they might be eternally lost if the charges brought against John were not true ; and, at their request, a letter was sent to the Pope bidding him come " and clear himself from all these things." The letter (dated November 6) offered John a safe-conduct, and received (according to Liutprand's version of the matter) the follow- ing curt reply : " John, the bishop, servant of the servants of God, to all the bishops. We have heard it said that you want to make another pope. If you do this, I excommuni- cate you by Almighty God, that you may not have per- mission to ordain anyone, or to celebrate Mass." It may be here remarked, parenthetically, that the learned Cardinal Pitra l wonders that the Regesta could ever for a moment have regarded such a document as the above as authentic ; and he adds that all the injurious writings inspired by the struggle between the Papacy and the Empire ought always to be viewed with suspicion.

To this answer of the Pope the synod sent a reply (November 22). After some childish remarks, which could only have come from the flippant Liutprand, on a gram- matical blunder in the Pope's letter, put there, no doubt, by the bishop himself, the bishops declared that, if John did not come to answer the accusations brought against him,

1 De epp. et reg. R.P., p. 125. " II est surtout permis de se defier de tous les ecrits injurieux inspires par la lutte du sacerdoce et de l'empire."

260 JOHN XII.

they would set his excommunication at naught ; nay, would retort it on himself. For he was in the same plight as Judas, who, though he had received from Our Lord the power of binding and loosing, after his treason had only power to bind himself, and that with a halter ! If such coarseness really owed its origin to the council, it shows how com- petent it was to judge even such a Pope as John XII.

Those who had been entrusted with the delivery of this letter to the Pope returned to Rome to say that they could not find out whither he had gone. A later author l tells us he was lurking in the woods like a beast (more bestice). The emperor thereupon again laid before his assembly the political "perfidy" of the Pope towards him, and concluded : " ' Now let the holy synod pronounce what it decides upon this.' To this the Roman bishops, the rest of the clergy, and all the people answered : ' An unheard-of wound must be cauterised in an unheard-of manner.' . . . ' We therefore beg your imperial greatness to drive away from the Holy Roman Church this monster, unredeemed from his vices by any virtue, and to put another in his place, who may merit by the example of a good conversation to preside over us.' . . . Then the emperor replied : ' Nothing will be more welcome to us than that such a one may be found.' When he had spoken thus, all with one voice exclaimed : 2 ' We choose for our shepherd . . . Leo the venerable protonotary ; . . . John the apostate being cast off on account of his reprobate conduct' . . . With the agreement of the emperor, sing- ing the customary laudes, they conduct the said Leo to the Lateran palace; and, after a given time,3 raise him by

1 Gregory of Catino, Hist. Far/., ap. M. G. SS., xi., p. 558.

2 All the Romans (consensu cleri) ask for Leo, says Gregory. lb.

3 Two days ! Elected December 4, and consecrated bishop of Rome December 6, by Sico, bishop of Ostia, who had quite illegally bestowed upon him all the lesser orders in the interval.

JOHN XII. 26l

holy consecration in St. Peter's Church to the supreme priesthood, and promise with an oath to be faithful to him " (December 6, 963).

Here the narrative of the bishop of Cremona may be again interrupted for a moment to point out that both the deposition of John and the election of a layman were illegal. This is acknowledged by authors as well non- Catholic1 as Catholic. Otho's act was, moreover, con- demned at the time even in Germany. " The contempor- aries of the Othos," notes Mr. Fisher,2 "were devout believers in the sacred pre-eminence, and even in the infallibility of the Popes, and there were doubts expressed in Germany as to the right of Otho I. to depose a vicar of Christ. When Burchard of Worms, in 1002, compiled a kind of canonical florilegium, he was, while recognising the king's right to punish and correct clerks, concerned to point out that the Pope is a supreme judge, who may be asked to purge himself of an accusation, but who may not be judged by any mortal save himself."

Further, there is no doubt that the election of Leo had not, in fact, even the appearance of freedom given to it by Liutprand. Otho simply "placed Leo in the Apostolic See."3 He was his nominee.

To resume the narrative of Liutprand : " When these To the things had happened in this way, the most holy emperor, hoping that he could remain in Rome with but few men, gave permission to many to retire, that the Roman people might not be oppressed by the great number of the army.

1 "That deposition was manifestly illegal, as effected by the influence of the emperor. The same illegality must brand the election of Leo VIII." Hist, of Europe during the Middle Ages, i. 145. Cabinet Cyclop, series.

2 The Medieval Empire, \\. 113.

8 Ann. Altahenses Maj., 963. " Imperator .... Leonem in sedem apostolicam collocavit."

262 JOHN XII.

And when John, who was called Pope, heard this, knowing how easily the minds of the Romans are bribed with money,1 he sent messengers secretly to Rome, and promised them the money of St. Peter and of all the churches, if they would fall upon the pious emperor and the Lord Pope Leo and impiously slay them." A street rising took place (January 964) ; but the trained soldiers fell upon the crowd " like hawks among a crowd of birds." At the request of Leo, however, Otho restored to the Romans the hostages he had exacted from them ; and, commending his Pope to their good faith, left Rome (c. January 12) to pursue Adalbert, who was now abandoned 2 by John, and reported to be in the neighbourhood of Spoleto or Camerino. At once the Romans were in arms again, roused this time, so Liutprand would like us to believe, by the numerous lovers of the voluptuous John. With difficulty Leo escaped to the emperor, and John XII. was once again master in Rome (February 964). John xii. After severely punishing some of his enemies by Rome.m mutilation or death,3 John assembled a council which met on February 26 in St. Peter's. There were present at it sixteen bishops, all from Italy, twelve cardinal-priests, and a considerable number of clergy of inferior rank. Though most of the distinguished members of the council had been present at the synod which had condemned John,

1 A weakness equally displayed by "the minds of the Romans"' at this day ; a weakness strongly commented on by such different characters as Jugurtha and John of Salisbury.

2 "Johannes .... sera pcenitentia ductus, ab Adalbertodisjungitur." Con/. Reg., 963.

3 Liutprand is here corroborated by Benedict, c. 37 ; Cont. Reg.t 964; and Gerbert, the famous Sylvester II., an ally, however, of the Othos. In his Acta Cone. Remensis, c. 28, he writes of John "in volutabro libidinum versatum," and tells how he maltreated the deacon John, " multaque Cicde primorum in urbe debacchatus, in brevi moritur."

JOHN XII. 263

they had now no scruple, in the three sessions which they held, in condemning Otho's assembly. They would probably have urged in defence of their conduct that in the first instance they were under compulsion.

John himself opened the proceedings: "You know, dearly beloved brethren, that by the power of the emperor I was expelled from my see for two months. I ask you then if, according to the canons, that can be called a synod which was held in my absence in my church on December 4 by the Emperor Otho and his archbishops and bishops ? " The bishops replied in the negative ; and the said synod was duly condemned. Next the action of Sico of Ostia in hurriedly ordaining and then consecrating the intruder Leo was also condemned, and he was summoned to come up for judgment at the third session. Sentence was then solemnly passed on Leo by the Pope himself: " By the authority of God Almighty, of the Princes of the Apostles, Peter and Paul, of the ecumenical councils and by the judgment of the Holy Ghost pronounced by us, may Leo, one of the employees of our curia, a neophyte (layman), and a man who has broken his troth to us, be deprived of all clerical honours ; and if, hereafter, he should again attempt to sit on the apostolic throne, or perform any sacerdotal function, let him be anathematised along with his aiders and abettors, and, except in danger of death, not receive the sacred body of Our Lord Jesus Christ." Then those who had received any sacred orders from Leo were introduced before the council, and were made to sign a paper to the effect that as Leo had no spiritual power himself, he could not impart any to them. They were thus reduced to the rank from which Leo had raised them.

In the second session the bishops of Albano and Porto acknowledged their guilt in helping at Leo's consecration ;

264 JOHN XII.

and in the third session, as Sico did not appear, he was definitely degraded from his sacerdotal rank. At the conclusion of the synod laymen were forbidden to take a place on the sanctuary during the celebration of Mass.1

John did not long survive his return to power. But before he died he seems to have made some effort to come to terms with Otho. With that end in view, he released and sent to the emperor, Otger, bishop of Spires, whom he had scourged and imprisoned when he took possession of the city. * But by the will of heaven," says Regino's continuator, " his hopes came to naught. For he died on the fourteenth of May."2

Though his death brought fresh troubles on the Roman See, there can be no doubt that the chair of Peter was the better for the death of John XII. His youth and want of special preparation for the exalted position he held have, however, caused most moderns, whether Catholic or not, to put forward pleas for a merciful judgment on him. " But perhaps the errors of John XII," says one3 of the latter class, "however scandalous, were not greater than might have been expected from the education bestowed on the son of Alberic and grandson of Marozia, or from the natural struggle of impulse and passion against the unnatural restraints of a rank forcibly imposed in the absence of every qualification."

1 Labbe, Cone, ix., 653 f.

2 No particulars of his death are given by this author, by the L. P., nor by the Ann. Alth. Maj. But Liutprand knows all about them. "On a certain night," outside Rome, taken in adulter}', "he was so struck by the devil on the temples that he died within eight days," without receiving the Holy Viaticum— "as I have very often heard from his friends who were present" (Hist., c. 19). To render this story more credible, some, e.g. Gregorovius, have converted the devil into the outraged husband, and others into apoplexy. Those will believe this story who put faith in Liutprand.

3 Hemans, Hist, of Med. Christ, in Italy, p. 23.

JOHN XII. 265

With all his faults, John XII. has deserved well of>^xn

• J and

England, if only because he approved of the election of England

& ' J ^^ and Wales.

St. Dunstan to the See of Canterbury, — of St. Dunstan whom our ancestors always spoke of with reverence and gratitude as of a man " of great power in earthly matters, and of high favour with God,"1 but whom some modern English writers, certainly not resting on the testimony of antiquity, have not hesitated to depreciate.2 The battle- axes of the Danes had shivered the bonds of society in this country, and their torches, by firing the monasteries, had destroyed the homes of learning in our land. The settlement and incorporation of large numbers of these fierce heathens among our people had not improved matters ; nor had the plundering of such monasteries as had escaped the ravages of the Danes by the Saxon princes themselves, in their anxiety to replenish their coffers emptied by the wars. As a result of all these causes of national deterioration, the laity became well- nigh as savage as the pagan Norsemen who had harried them ; and the clergy throughout most of the land had grown ignorant and undisciplined. The monks had well-nigh disappeared from the country along with their vanished homes. And — a thing which had been unheard of in England for two if not three centuries after the arrival of St. Augustine — the tenth century saw no

1 Will, of Malmsbury, Hist. Reg., ii., § 149.

2 This does not apply to such a writer as J. R. Green. An apprecia- tive account of St. Dunstan will be found in his fascinating Short Hist, of the Eng. People, p. 51. With this contrast the party narrative in Hook's Lives of the Archbishops of Ca?iterbury ', i., c. 7 ; and still more the invective against St. Dunstan in Milman's Latin Christ., for which invective Dr. Stubbs, the learned editor of the saint's Lives for the Rolls series, says, p. cxviii., " there is not in the writings of contemporaries, or in any authentic remains of Dunstan's legislation, the shadow of a foundation." The same may be said of a very great deal of the Dean's history. It is much more picturesque than well founded.

266 JOHN XII.

small number of married priests in the land. Up to the very close of the ninth century, the great Alfred made the strongest efforts to apply remedies to these evils. But he left much to be done after him. It is the great glory of St. Dunstan that he continued the work of reform inaugu- rated by that enlightened monarch, and restored the monastic order and learning along with it. On the death of Elfsy or Elfsine, who was frozen to death in the Alps when on his way to Rome for the pallium, and on the retirement of Brythelm, Dunstan was translated to the See of Canter- bury, and instantly set out "on the wearisome journey which the Primates are wont to make" to Rome,1 "on account of the vigour of the apostolic faith and authority " ("ob robur apostolicse fidei vel auctoritatis ").2 " At length he reached the long-wished-for church of the Roman See, where he gloriously received the chief (principale) pallium, with the privilege of the archbishopric, and the apostolic blessing." When he had revisited the shrines of the saints, and given alms " to the poor of Christ," the Pope "sent him back to the English nation as it were the angel of the Lord of Hosts, to unfold the science of God, or as it were a column of fire to illumine the face of the earth." 3 The bull of John XII.4 granting him the pallium and the primacy has been preserved by Eadmer and

1 So speaks his biographer, the Saxon priest B., who wrote a year or two after the saint's death (c. 27, R.S.). In the preceding chapter he said of Elfsy : " Qui cum ex summorum pontificum consuetudine, post pallium principalis infuke Romuleam urbem contenderet pro- perare," etc.

2 Osbern, a monk of Canterbury, who, in the eleventh century, under Archbishop Lanfranc, wrote a Life of St. Dunstan, using authors who wrote within twenty years after the death of St. Dunstan. Vit. Dunst.y c. 32, ap. P. L., t. 137. This Life and the other Lives of St. Dunstan are to be found in a volume of the Rolls Series, edited by Stubbs, and entitled Memorials of St. Dunstan.

3 Osbern, id. 4 Ep. 9, an. 9C0.

JOHN XII. 267

others.1 The new archbishop is exhorted to show himself a true pastor of souls, and the primacy is confirmed to him by the Pope, who tells him to act in the stead of the Apostolic See as his predecessors have done. " According to custom, we bestow on thy brotherhood the pallium, to be used at the solemn celebration of Mass. We grant it to thee to be worn only at Christmas, Epiphany, Easter, Ascension Day, and Whit Sunday, and at the Assumption of Mary the Mother of God, and at the feasts of the Apostles, as also at the consecration of bishops, and on thy birthday, and on the feast of the consecration of thy church."

The saint is told to let his life be as bright and spotless as the pallium itself, to be strictly yet mercifully just, and to defend the poor.2

This is not the place to dilate on the work of that truly patriotic prelate St. Dunstan, " whose one object in life was never to cease working for his Divine Master." His bio- grapher, Osbern, has done it most eloquently in the chapter (34) from which the last quotation was taken. The little leisure that public affairs allowed him, the saint employed in prayer, in reading the sacred Scriptures, and — a work of the utmost importance — in correcting their codices. His

1 Hist. Nov., lib. v., p. 274, R. S. " Primatum itaque tuum, in quo tibi ex more antecessorum tuorum vices Apostolicae Sedis exercere convenit, ita tibi ad plenum confirmamus." This passage is not found in the so-called Pontifical of Dnnsta?i or of Sherborne, " a magnificent folio of the tenth century " now in the National Library of Paris, but "which once belonged to the church of Sherborne in Dorsetshire, and may not improbably have been given to it by Dunstan, or by one of his early successors." Besides its ordinary contents as a bishop's service book, " it contains on vacant leaves a number of interesting pieces touching English church history," e.g. the bull of John XII. to Dunstan. Stubbs, Memorials of St. Dunstan, p. cxiii., R.S. The authenticity of the passage "Primatum tuum" is sufficiently assured by the "pallium principale" etc., of the saint's anonymous con- temporary biographer.

2 In the Memorials this bull is to be found on p. 296 f.

268 JOHN XII.

love of his country is frequently insisted upon, as is also his

zeal in helping all in need, and pushing forward every good

work, for which he took care to raise money. He practically

governed the country. For, such faith did King Edgar

place in him, that " whatever Dunstan thought ought to be

decreed, that the king ordered."1 But, as we have said,

his great work was the reformation of the clergy, especially

by the establishment of monks in places where the secular

canons would not amend their lives. One of the principal

difficulties that Dunstan had to contend against was the

marriage of the clergy. During the times of trouble many

had taken unto themselves wives, and had been allowed to

retain them, or, at any rate, had kept them, if they had

been married before ordination. And though we have

absolutely no means of determining the proportion of the

married clergy in the country, there were certainly enough

of them to make a stand for their position.

The clergy An interesting entry in the Brut y Tywysogion, or of WaleSj

Chronicle of the Princes of Wales, shows that the same

state of things existed in Wales. "The same year (961)

Padarn, bishop of Llandafif, died, and Rhodri, son of

Morgan the Great, was placed in his room, against the will

of the Pope, on which account he was poisoned ; and the

priests were enjoined not to marry without leave of the

Pope, on which account a great disturbance took place in

the diocese of Teilaw, so that it was considered best to

allow matrimony to the priests." 2

1 " Totam operam suara patriam impendere," etc. Osbern, c. 34. Cf. the anonymous (auctore B) contemporary writer on whom Osbern relies, p. 49, R. S.

1 Gwentian version of the Chronicle— ap. Haddan and Stubbs, Councils, i. 286. It is the Dimetian version of the Brut that is printed in the Rolls Series. Though this Chronicle in the ancient Welsh dialect, which goes down to 1282, was not, in the form in which we have it, first drawn up before about the middle of the twelfth century, it rests on earlier documents.

JOHN XII. 269

But in England, under the firm hand of Dunstan, the The case of the married priests had at length a different issue, clergy of He proclaimed that they must either live in accordance with the canons, or be expelled from their churches.1 Procuring the elevation to the episcopate of such men as St. Oswald and St. Ethelwold, he proceeded with the work of reform. And to effect it he had occasionally need of the assistance both of Pope and King. To Ethelwold his clergy of Winchester offered a desperate resistance — a re- sistance such as might be expected would be offered by men who made no scruple about " repudiating the wives they had married unlawfully in the first instance, taking others, and giving themselves up to gluttony and intemperance." 2 The bishop appealed to his Primate and to the king ; and both primate and king turned to the Pope. An authoritative letter, not from John XI I., but from his namesake John XIII., assigned by Jaffe to 97 1,3 was in due course dispatched from Rome. "John, servant of the servants of God, to the most excellent King Edgar, and to all the bishops, dukes, counts, abbots, and to all the faithful people of the English race, greeting in Christ and the apostolic benedic- tion." ..." Wherefore, illustrious king and most dear son, what your Excellency has asked of this Apostolic See through our brother and fellow-bishop Dunstan, that we most willingly grant. With regard to those canons, who by their vices are hateful to God, to their bishop, and to all good Catholics, we approve, by our apostolic authority,

1 Osbern, c. 36. Cf. c. 34.

2 At least so says Wolstan, the contemporary biographer of Ethel- wold, c. 16, ap. P. L,t. 137.

3 Regest. ; the letter, ap. Labbe, ix., 664. There is very considerable confusion as to dates and events in the history of England at this period both in ancient and modern authors. Hence I have confined myself to speaking only of what is to be found in contemporary docu- ments. Cf. Eadmer, in vit. Dunst., c. 33, p. 211, R.S.

270 JOHN XII.

of their being ejected from the monastery in Winchester which is dedicated to the Holy Trinity and to the apostles Peter and Paul. And, as your sublimity desires, let our most beloved brother and fellow-bishop Ethelwold therein establish monks living in accordance with their rule ; and let the successors of the See of Winchester be in future chosen from them, or from some other congregation of monks where a suitable candidate may be found." The monks were in due course properly installed.

With Pope, king, primate, and bishop working in harmony, suitable measures of reform could soon be established everywhere. But unfortunately those who wish to pursue their own courses know how to interfere with this harmony. Adelard l and Eadmer have preserved a story which shows that Dunstan did not always secure the co- operation of the Pope, but that he knew when he might safely exercise a wise independence of character. He had had occasion to inflict a canonical penalty on an ealdorman who had refused to separate from a woman whom he had married within the forbidden degrees of kindred. The ealdorman contrived to influence King Edgar in his favour. But the king's interference only brought a more severe punishment on the offender. The ealdorman became furious. He would gain his ends cost what it might. With well-filled purses he sent his agents to Rome, and with these he won over " the hearts and tongues of certain Romans." Through their help, it was not difficult to procure a bull ordering Dunstan to recall his sentence. But, even under this assault, the archbishop stood firm. He understood that the " singular sublimity of the Roman pontiff"2 had been deceived, and he told the noble "that he would obey the commands of the Pope when he saw him (the ealdorman) sorry for his fault" The firmness

1 In vit. Dunst., p. 67, R. S. Cf. Ead., c. 26. 2 Osbem, c. 31.

JOHN XII. 271

of Dunstan was as successful in this case as in that of

the refractory monks. The ealdorman did his duty, and

submitted.1 When such men as Dunstan in England,

and Bruno in Germany, were at work, there was hope,

both for the despised laws of God and man, and for the

down-trodden masses of the people.

All the coins, silver as usual, of John XII.,2 of whom we Coins.

have lost sight a little, proclaim his complete independence,

bearing always the word " Dominus." Those which were

coined before the coronation of Otho bear his own name

and that of St. Peter with " Roma." The others show the

name of Otho as well as that of the Pope ; some having

" Otto imperato," and others only " Otto."3

While on the subject of coins, we may note that if Peter's J ; Pence.

John XII. was as bad as he is painted by Liutprand, our

ancestors must have thoroughly understood the difference

between the man and his office. At any rate their Peter's

Pence was paid with becoming regularity. At least we

may presume so from the severity of Edgar's laws with

regard to it. "If anyone failed to pay his penny (denarius)

by the feast of St. Peter, he had to take it to Rome with

thirty more ; and on his return with a receipt that he had

paid it, he had further to disburse 120 solidi (shillings)

to the king. . . . For the third offence all his goods were to

be confiscated." i The attachment of the English to the

1 Anxious to prove the existence in England in the early Middle Ages of such an anachronism as an independent national Catholic Church, this utterly exceptional action of St. Dunstan is pressed into service by Rev. W. Hunt in the first vol., p. 414, of the new Anglican Hist, of the English Church : " A papal sentence was, we are told, summarily set aside by so eminent a churchman as Dunstan."

2 All the coins that belong with certainty to the antipope Leo VIII. have the name " Otho " in conjunction with " Leoni Pap."

3 Promis, p. 90.

4 Ap. Labbe, ix., pp. 681, 2, 6. In Anglo-Saxon the law began : " Let every hearth-penny be paid up by St. Peter's mass-day," etc.

272 JOHN XII.

See of Rome was then practical as well as theoretical even during the dreadful tenth century. Spain. The Catholics of Spain also knew equally well how to

distinguish the personal character of a Pope from the office which he held. This we learn from a fact preserved for us by the abbot Leo,1 the legate of John XV. to France. Writing in connection with some derogatory remarks made at a council at Rheims (991) against certain Popes, the abbot says: "In the same way with regard to Spain. In the times of Pope John the son of Alberic, whom you (the kings and bishops of Rheims) have wantonly besmirched, Julian, archbishop of Cordova, sent (to the Pope) by envoys a letter on many difficult matters. He wanted guidance, and, not asking about the character of the reigning pontiff, but expressing his respect for the Apostolic See, he sought for what was useful for himself. From this incident," con- cludes the abbot, " learn that the Roman Church is still honoured and venerated by all the churches."

Leg. Edg., i. 4. Cf. The Laws of the Northumbt ian Priests, an. 950. " We desire that every Rome-penny be paid about the feast of St. Peter to the bishop's throne. We desire also that two faithful thanes and one priest be appointed to collect it in every Wapentake? Can. 57, quoted from Wilkin's Concilia, i. 221, by Hart, Ecclesiastical Records, p. 28, ed. 2 ; Cambridge, 1846.

1 In his letter to the kings Hugh Capet and his son, Robert the I'ious, ap. Olleris, QLuvres de Gerbcrt, p. 242. For the abbot Leo see under John XV.

BENEDICT V.

A.D. 964.

Sources. — The Narratio de Benedicto V.t to which Potthast (Biblio- theca hist., ii. 1652 and 802) refers, is merely a very late Middle Age compilation. It is a section of a work bearing the following title : " Incerti auctoris historia Archiepp. Bremensium a temp. Caroli Magni usque ad Carolum IV. (1355-78)," ap. Lindenbrog, SS. Rer. Germ. sept. (Hamburg, 1706), p. 117, and adds nothing to our knowledge.

FOR peace' sake it would have been very much better if Benedict

elected

the Romans had now made a virtue of necessity and elected Otho's nominee, Leo. But, by their prompt recall of John XII., the moment the emperor's back was turned on Rome, they had made it plain that they regarded Leo's election as the work of Otho, and not theirs ; and so, on the death of John, they determined to show that they, and not the emperor, had the right to elect popes. They accordingly chose as the successor of John XII. the cardinal-deacon Benedict, a Roman and the son of another John. Frodoard adds that he was a notary, and had taken part in the election oi John, i.e., of Leo\ for, through- out, Frodoard or his copyist has here written John for VOL. IV. 273 18

274 BENEDICT V.

Leo. According to a twelfth-century catalogue,1 Benedict belonged to the M region of Marcellus, de regione Marcello." This would appear to be the only mention of a region bearing this title. It may, perhaps, be presumed that the quarter was called after the theatre of Marcellus, which, at first, in the ninth region (Circus Flaminius), was in the Middle Ages included in the eleventh region (St. Angelo). Hence, if it be the fact that the tenth and eleventh regions are not mentioned in any contemporary document of the tenth century,2 it would appear that the region which was afterwards the eleventh, was then known as that " of Marcellus." On this occasion certainly their choice did the Romans credit, for Benedict was as remarkable for his prudence as for his learning. So learned was he that he was known by the name of Grammaticus?

The Romans at once sent to inform the emperor of their choice. Their envoys found him at Rieti, but in no mood to listen to them. He would, he said, as lief give up his sword as not restore Leo. Seeing there was no hope of any concession to the wishes of the Roman people, the envoys returned to Rome. Undaunted, the electors pro- ceeded to the consecration of the object of their choice, and Benedict became Pope in May (possibly May 22) 964, "without the consent and will of the emperor,"4 after having received a promise on oath from the Romans that they would never abandon him, but would protect him against the power of the emperor.5 Benedict had already had experience of the phenomenal fickleness of the Romans. He was destined to have more.

1 Ap. M. G. SS., xxiv. p. 84. - Gregorovius, Rome, iii. 533.

:i The monk Benedict (c. 37) says of htm : "Erat enim vir pruden- tissimus, gramatice artis imbutus, unde ad Romanum populo B. Gramaticus est appellatus." Cf. Gerbert, Acta C. Rem., c. 28 ; and Frodoard, A tin., 965.

4 L. P., in vit. Joan. XII. '* Liut., Hist., c. 20.

BENEDICT V. 275

The indignation of the emperor at these events can easily Otho re-

, , , , , , - , . . . , ,, stores Leo.

be imagined, and " he swore by the power of his kingdom that he would besiege Rome until he had Benedict in his power. He had already captured Berenger and his wife, and sent them into Germany. The forces of Adalbert and of the other sons of the late king of Italy had been scattered. He had now nothing else to attend to but the affairs of the Papacy. Accordingly, gathering together a large army, he advanced on Rome, and closely blockaded it. No able- bodied person was allowed to leave it. Famine soon made itself felt within the walls. A modius (peck) of bran cost thirty denarii. The whole country round about the city was devastated ; its walls were ceaselessly battered by engines of war. It was to no purpose that Benedict mounted the walls, and endeavoured to inspire the Romans with courage ; it was in vain he threatened to excommunicate the emperor and his army. Hunger soon extinguished the effervescent courage of the Romans. They gave up both their city and their Pope into the hands of Otho (June 23, 964). Leo entered Rome " with his Caesar," as Gerbert well puts it ; and at once, with the emperor's co-operation, caused Benedict to be brought before him and his clerical and lay adherents. Clad in his pontifical robes, and with his pastoral staff in his hands, "the innocent Benedict"1 was shown scant courtesy. Asked how he had dared to aspire to the Papacy during the lifetime of Leo, whom he had himself helped to elect, he simply appealed for mercy. " Si quid peccavi, miseremini mei," was his cry, if any faith can be placed in Liutprand, from whom alone we have these particulars. Assured by the emperor that, if he chose to acknowledge his guilt, he would find mercy, Benedict threw himself before the feet of Leo and

1 So is he called even by the L. P., which here shows strong imperial leanings.

276 BENEDICT V.

acknowledged himself an intruder. Of all this abject humiliation the continuator of Regino says nothing; but he agrees with Liutprand in stating that Benedict was degraded with the consent of all, that by the hands of Leo himself his pallium was torn from him, and his pastoral staff broken in pieces, and that it was only through the intercession of Otho that he was allowed to retain his rank as deacon.1

Considering, however, the courage which, according to Liutprand himself, was displayed by Benedict during the siege, the story of his appeal for mercy related by that narrator or fabricator of myths may be dismissed, and we may take it as a fact that he was simply deposed by Otho by brute force. The latter's high-handed conduct was condemned by the German historian Ditmar or Thietmar. " The mighty emperor of the Romans gave his consent to the deposition of the apostolic Lord Benedict, more powerful in Christ than he, whom no one but God can judge, and who had been unjustly, as I hope, accused. Furthermore, what I would that he had never done, he ordered that he should be sent into exile to Hamburg."2 Whether or not Thietmar has here, as is thought by some, confused Otho's second expedition into Italy (961-965) with his third (966-972), it is clear enough that he wished to record his righteous disapproval of the emperor's violent methods, otho leaves After he had exacted an oath from the Romans over the body of St. Peter that they would be faithful to him and to Leo his Pope,3 Otho on this occasion took no further vengeance on the Romans, but left the city soon after the feast of SS. Peter and Paul4 (June 29), with

1 With Liutprand and Cont. Reg., cf. Frodoard, Benedict of Soracte, and the L. P.

- Chron., ii. 18. 3 L. P. ' Coniin. Reg, 964.

BENEDICT V. 277

Benedict in his company. But he had delayed too long for the health of his army. And if Benedict imagined he had been unjustly used by Otho, he must have believed also that the heats of the Roman summer had thoroughly avenged him. " Henry, archbishop of Trier .... Godfrey, duke of Lorraine, and a countless number of others, both of high and low birth, perished by pestilence." 1

When Otho had recruited his strength with a little autumnal hunting in North Italy, and had regulated the affairs of that kingdom, he returned to Germany in the very beginning of 965, still with Benedict in his train.

What is known of the last days of the unfortunate Death of Benedict may best be told in the words of Adam of 965. Bremen, who had learnt from " his fathers " what he says of him. Otho entrusted the custody of him to Adaldag of Hamburg-Bremen,2 " The archbishop kept him with great honour till his death ; for he is said to have been both holy and learned and worthy of the Apostolic See. . . . And so living a holy life with us, and teaching others how to live well, he at length died a happy death just when the Romans had come to ask the emperor that he might be restored (to the See of Peter). His death is set down as having taken place July 4, at Hamburg" (965). It would seem, however, that if Adaldag was kindly disposed towards the poor exile, other Germans were by no means so considerate. Many regarded him as an antipope, as an insolent opponent of their mighty emperor and of the

1 Co7itin. Reg., 964.

- Gest. Hamd., ii. 10. Cf. Ann. Alta., 964 ; Hildesh., 963 ; Contin. Reg., 965, etc. According to Ceillier, Hist, des auteurs eccle's., xiv. 207, there is in the edition of Adam of Bremen, by Fabricius (Hamburg, 1706), a Life of Benedict V., which gives the epitaph from his tomb in the cathedral of Hamburg. Unfortunately, I could not find the said edition in the British Museum ; but the epitaph will be found further on, taken from the Bollandists.

278 BENEDICT V.

lawful Pope Leo VIII., their countryman. Scant courtesy- did Benedict receive at the hands of these men, who endeavoured to keep away from him such as wished to show him honour and goodwill. With many they were, no doubt, successful. But even among the rough Germans of the tenth century, there were men with human hearts; and one such, Libentius (Lievizo, tIOI3)> tne successor of Adaldag, found consolation on his death-bed from the way in which he had behaved towards one who had borne the title of Pope. " My dearest brethren and sons," said the dying archbishop to those around him, " that none of you may ever lose faith in the divine goodness, and that your long labour in nursing me may now be a little lightened, I would put before you my own career as an example. When the Lord Pope Benedict was an exile in these parts, I sought him out ; and though every effort was made to prevent my going to him, I would never allow myself to be influenced against the Pope. But, as long as he lived, I closely adhered to him. After his death, I faithfully served my Lord Adaldag, who entrusted his poor to my care, and afterwards made me his treasurer {camerarius). When that good man went to the heavenly country for which he had ever sighed, I succeeded him by your unanimous election and the royal favour. For the love of Christ let us put from our hearts any wrongs we may have done one another, that, parting now in peace, we may be joined together again at the last day." * His body ' By the command of Otho III., Razo, his chaplain, who backgtol was afterwards elected to succeed Adaldag (f988), but died before his consecration, took back to Rome the bones of Benedict, some time before the year 988. But where he laid them is not known. Thietmar, who gives2 us these 1 Thietmar, Chron., vi. 53. ■ Chron., iv. 39, 40.

Cenotaph of Benedict V. (from A<(a SS. Bollami., Prfifylaum ad mensem Maiam, p, 164*).

BENEDICT V. 279

particulars, says that this was done in accordance with a prophecy of Benedict himself. " Here," said the deposed pontiff, " must my frail body return to dust. After my death all this country will be devastated by the sword of the heathen and be abandoned to wild beasts. Nor will the land experience solid peace till my translation. But when I am taken home, I truet that, by the intercession of the apostle, the pagan ravages will cease." And all this, we are told, was exactly what happened.

The Bollandists have given us1 a description of Benedict's The se- cenotaph which was to be seen in the old cathedral of Monument Hamburg. Raised about a foot from the pavement, and v. somewhat over a yard broad and two and a half yards long, it was composed entirely of glazed bricks. The figures on it were in white on a green ground. Benedict was represented as a simple bishop without the pallium, but wearing the mitre, and with a crozier in his gloved hand. Figures of the apostles, and representations of the Crucifixion and the Annunciation, adorned the sides of the tomb, while the inscription on it stated to whom it belonged. " Benedictus papa qui de Sede apostolica per violentiam remotus et postea, cum revocaretur, obiit Ham- burgii iv. nonas Julii sepultus est hie." Battandier says nothing about the age of this cenotaph, but from the illustration which he gives of it, it is obviously not of the age of Benedict himself. Indeed, a German author, writing in 1675, declares that it was not two hundred years old. It may, then, be safely set down as a fifteenth-century monument, erected, possibly, to replace an older one.2

Of the three denarii which Cinagli assigns to this Pope, Coins.

1 Propylceuni ad m. Man, p 166, ap. Battandier, Ann. Pont., 1904, p. 151.

2 Cf. Lindenbrog, SS. Rer. Germ., p. 118 (ed. 1706), quoting a paper on the subject of the cenotaph by Otto Sperlingius, whom he calls " vir historias patriae callentissimus."

280 BENEDICT V.

there is one which bears the names of the Pope and St. Peter only, and not that of the emperor. But even with regard to this coin, it is stated that there are traces of letters on it which cannot be made out. However, if it really never bore upon it the name Otho, it might have belonged to this Pope; but it would seem certain that the other two belonged to Benedict VI. (972-973), who had more leisure and inclination to strike off coins bearing the emperor's name. With Promis,1 then, we conclude that not one of the extant denarii was coined by Benedict V. Leo viii. Regarding John XII., and the good but unfortunate Benedict V., as lawful Popes, it is by no means easy to say what was the status of Leo VIII. Most modern Catholic authors describe him as an antipope ; and such, till the deposition of Benedict V., he undoubtedly was. For as certainly as the deposition of John XII. by Otho was illegal, the election of Benedict was legal. But, if Liutprand could be relied on, and we could thus be sure that Benedict acquiesced in his deposition, then Leo could be regarded as lawful Pope from July 23, 964, till his death. He was a Roman and the son of John, the protonotary. In the Book of the Popes,2 he is described as a venerable man, energetic and honourable ; and when nominated to the chair of Peter by Otho, was himself " protonotary of the supreme Apostolic See." He belonged " to the region which is called Clivus Argentarii" (now the Via di Mar- forio, which connects the Corso and the Forum Romanum), and gave his name to a street or streets in the locality. For there were to be found there streets called " the descent of Leo Prothus," and " de Ascesa Proti," where the Prothus, etc., is evidently derived from /Vfltoscriniarius.3

1 Monete dei RR. Pont., p. 92.

1 In vit.Johan. XII. ; cf. Contin. Reg., 963.

3 L. P., ii., p. 248, n. 13.

BENEDICT V. 28l

The name of Leo VIII. is most famous for its connec- Bulls in

favour of

tion with bulls,1 in virtue of which Otho and his successors the em- are alleged to have received the right of choosing their successors in the kingdom of Italy, and of nominating {ordinandi) the Pope, and the archbishops, and bishops, so that they were to receive investiture from him. Leo is also said to have given up tc Otho all the lands that had been granted to the Apostolic See by Pippin and Charlemagne. Though it may be likely that Leo granted various concessions to his patron, it is allowed on all hands that the bulls in question were, if not wholly fabricated during the investiture quarrel, at least then so tampered with that there is now no recognising their original form.2

As the right of Leo VIII. to be numbered among the Popes is so doubtful, the rest of his doings will here be passed over in silence. Besides, as a matter of fact, very little is known of them to tell. According to Cinagli and Promis, there are extant three silver coins of Leo VIII. But one of the three which does not bear the emperor's name, is by some thought to belong to another Leo.

Leo VIII. died about the month of March 965 — certainly Death of between February 20 and April 13, as is clear from the dates of various authentic documents which bear his name.3

1 Their text may be found ap. Watterich, Vit. Pont., i. 675 f.

2 Jaffe, 37041". ; Hefele, Cone, vi., § 521 ; Gregorovius, Rome, iii. 356 n. Bernheim, in his notes to Anselm of Lucca (ap. M. G. Libel I., i. 522), calls one of these bulls " that spurious privilege which the supporters of King Henry IV. and Guibert forged about the year 1084."

3 Jaffe, i., p. 469.

JOHN XIII

A.D. 965-972.

Sources. — One of the very best of the historians of the Middle Ages was Adam of Bremen. Master or director of the schools of Bremen, he was in 1077 made one of the canons of its cathedral. His history of its archbishops (Gesta Hammaburgensis Ecclesice Pontificuni) is the foundation of our knowledge of the history of the peoples of the North, and is distinguished for its perspicuity and accuracy. He knew how to make a good use both of documentary and oral evidence. The best edition of his Gesta (ap. M. G. SS., vii.) has been reprinted separately, in usum scholarum, and in P. Z., t. 146.

Thirty-three letters of John XIII., ap. P. Z., t. 135.

Modern works. — On the affairs of South Italy see Un empereur Byzantin (Nicephorus Phocas), by G. Schlumberger, Paris, 1890, ch. xiii., p. 577; J. Gay, Vltalie meridionale et /'empire Byzan~ tin, Paris, 1904; and especially La Grande-Grece (paysages et histoire), by F. Lenormant, in three volumes, Paris, 188 1-4. The last-named work is as interesting and picturesque as the country (Calabria) it describes ; and that, according to Lenormant, is "une des plus admirablement pittoresques et des plus interes- santes contrees de l'Europe meridionale." Unfortunately, how- ever, what it has gained in picturesqueness, it has lost in strict historical accuracy.

Election of On the death of Leo VIII., the Romans for once put a 965" " curb on their impetuosity and did not complicate matters

by flouting the emperor. They dispatched to Saxony Azzo

282

JOHN XIII. 283

the maimed protonotary, and Marinus, bishop of Sutri, to ask Otho " to nominate anyone he wished to the Papacy." This statement of the continuator of Regino, improbable in itself from what we know of the feelings of the Romans as to their rights of election, is in opposition to the account of Adam of Bremen. From him it appears that the Romans sent to ask that Eenedict might be sent back to them ; and that, had he not died in the meanwhile (July 4, 965), their request would have been granted by the emperor.1 Otho then proposed to the envoys as Leo's successor, John, bishop of Narni ;2 and with them on their return sent Otger, bishop of Spires, and his trusted Liutprand to see that his will was carried into effect. His missi did their work well, and John, bishop of Narni, was unanimously 3 elected to sit in the chair of Peter. He was consecrated on Sunday, October 1, 965.

Leaving out of consideration the manner in which John Hisfamily, was elected, the choice of him was certainly creditable e to Otho. The catalogues 4 speak of him as " the most reverend and pious bishop of Narni," as "highly learned and skilled in the Scriptures and in canon law," and as, in short, " most holy." 5 This no doubt was due to the fact that he had been properly trained for the sacred ministry. For in the same catalogues special stress is laid upon the fact that from his earliest youth he had been

1 " Cum jam Romanis poscentibus ab Caesare restitui deberet, apud Hammaburgin pace quievit (Benedictus V.)." Gesta H. P., ii. 10.

2 " Qui (imperator) sanctissimum papam Johannem episcopum .... ad idem opus electum, Romuleas quidem urbi papam instituit dignis- simum, orbi vero universo patrem et provisorem industrium." Rath- erius of Verona, Itinerar., ap. Migne, t. 136, p. 582, or ed. Verona, 1795. The Itinerarium was written in the beginning of December 966.

3 L. P., in vit. Joan. XIII. There is extant a donation of John as bishop of Narni and librarian of the Holy Apostolic See to Subiaco. It is dated 961. Cf. Muratori, Antiq. Ital., v. 773, ed. Milan, 1741.

4 L. P., in vit. Joan. XII. 5 The Sigeric Catal.<

284 JOHN XIII.

brought up at the Lateran palace in the schola cantorum, and had in due course passed through all the regular grades of " doorkeeper {hostiarius), reader, exorcist, acolyte, subdeacon, and deacon."1 After he left the schola, and entered on the battle of life, he took a distinguished part in public affairs. We find him in the Papal Chancery under John XII. and Leo VIII.; sharing in the condem- nation of John XII., and in his restoration; and, in 961, signing himself "librarian of the Holy Apostolic See."2 Even in these dark times the light of learning was evi- dently not altogether extinguished in Rome. The care of the precious archives of the Holy See was entrusted to its most learned son. So that even that hard- hitter and learned bishop, Ratherius of Verona (t974), who, by the way, praises Otho for nominating John to the See of Rome, in his Journey to Rome, writes : a Where shall I learn better than in Rome ? What is known concerning the dogmas of the Church which is not known in Rome? There it is that have ever shone the sovereign teachers of all the world, and the princes of the universal Church. There are the decretals of the Popes ; there are the canons examined, and some are approved and some rejected. What is there annulled is never confirmed, and what is there established is never overthrown " ! 3

To what is known for certain of the family of John XIII., who, according to some, from the white or light hair he had had from his childhood was known as the White Hen* something is generally added on more or less plausible

1 One catalogue speaks of him as a psalmista, doubtless to call special attention to the training he had received in the sacred chant.

2 L. P., ii., p. 252, n. 1.

3 Itinerary ubi supra, " Nusquam ratum quod illic irritum, nusquam irritum quod illic ratum fuerit visum."

4 Chron. Mosomense, " Legatos suos Romam dirigit (Adalberon, archbishop of Rheims) ad D. Joh. P., cognomento Albam Gallinam,

JOHN XIII. 285

conjecture. That he was a Roman and the son of Bishop John is told us by the Book of the Popes ; and Hugh of Farfa,1 who became abbot of that great monastery in 998, is supposed by Gregorovius to add to our knowledge of him by informing us that John, " who is known as the Greater," exalted a certain nephew of his called Benedict, by making him count of the Sabina, and by giving him in marriage Theodoranda, daughter of Crescentius, of the Marble Horse. But the John " who is known as the Greater " may have been John XV., so called, no doubt, to distinguish him from his immediate predecessor John XIV. Hence the editor (Bethmann) of the work of Hugh for the Monu- menta Germania assigns the " exaltation " of Benedict to John XV, and to the year 985.

Two extant diplomas, one of the year 987 and the other of 970, show in the one case a Count Benedict and his wife, the Comitissa and Senatrix Stephania, making a grant to the monastery of S. Alessio ; 2 and in the other the Pope granting a lease of the ancient town of Prseneste for a rent of ten gold solidi to "his most beloved daughter in the Lord, and most dear Senatrix Stephania and her sons and grandsons." 3 Hence it is conjectured that this Stephania was the mother of the supposed favoured nephew and the sister of John XIII.; that Pope John and Stephania were

qui a juventutis suae primis annis, reverential competentis et dignitatis angelicas albebat canis." Ap. Muratori, Ann., 971 ; or M. G. SS., xiv. But this account of the white hair of John XIII. probably arose from some confusion with John XV., who was born in a locality in Rome known as " Gallinas Albas." The history of the monastery of Mouzon, near Sedan, was written about 1033. However, in a donation of the year 971 we find the signature of a Count Gratian "in place of the Lord John XIII., the Angelical." Ap. Muratori, Antiq. Itat., v. 773.

1 Ap. M. G. SS., xi., or R. I. SS., ii., pt. ii., p. 550.

2 Ap. Archivio delta R. Soc. Rom. di Slor. Pat, 1904, p. 368.

3 Ap. P. L., t. 135, No. 18. Some versions give clarissimce, "most illustrious Senatrix."

286 JOHN XIII.

children of Theodora, the daughter of Theodora I., and that therefore John XII I. was of the house of Theophylactus, and of that branch of it which produced the Crescentii. A genealogical table put forth (sous reserves) by Duchesne supposes that Theodora II. was the mother of John XIII. Unable to reconcile this with some of the data at our command, I have supposed him to be the son of another Theodora (III.), the wife of John, who first appears as consul and duke, and afterwards as bishop. But it is to be feared there is too much supposition about all the genealogical tables of the house of Theophylactus to make any of them quite satisfactory, rhePope Doubtless feeling strong in the support of Otho, John December promptly took in hand the task of curbing the Roman nobility.1 But he was not strong enough to carry into effect this very necessary undertaking. The emperor was far away in Germany, and Adalbert had again appeared in arms in Lombardy. Feeling that their liberties (i.e. their licence) were about to be checked, certain of the nobles, headed by Rofred, a Campanian count, and Peter, the prefect of the city, raised the cry of " Down with the foreigner." " The Saxon kings," they urged, " were going to destroy their power and influence, and were going to lead their children into captivity." 2 This specious pretext was quite enough to rouse the Romans ; the disaffected nobles procured the aid of the " leaders of the people, who are called decarcones! *3 The Pope was seized, disgracefully

1 Contin. /iV^.,965.

2 Benedict (c. 39), u Ut non variant reges Saxones et destruat regnum nostrum et liberes nostre in captivitatem."

3 "Adjutorio vulgi populi, qui vocantur decarcones." L. P, It is thought that these twelve decarcotts were the captains of the city militia, like the patroni scholarum militia of the earlier centuries of the Middle Ages ; and that their number shows that the city was already divided into twelve regions, as it certainly was at the beginning of the twelfth century (L. P., ii. 513), at least for military purposes.

JOHN XIII. 287

maltreated, and thrust into the Castle of St. Angelo, " in accordance with the malignant practices " of the Romans.1 This was in the middle of December. Then, fearing that the knowledge that the Pope was a prisoner in his own city would give strength to his party, the rebels sent him into the Campagna, perhaps into some stronghold belong- ing to Rofred. However, they had not their own way for long. Rofred was killed by John, the son of Crescentius and perhaps the Pope's nephew, the Pope himself made his escape, and fled to Capua, and Otho entered Italy (August 966) with an enormous army.

Meanwhile the Pope, erecting Capua into a metropolitan He returns see, and consecrating as its first archbishop John, the brother of its prince, Pandulf,2 gained the support of that ruler, and marched on Rome through the Sabine and Tuscan territories. After the death of Rofred, the supporters of the Pope had no difficulty in gaining the upper hand, and when he drew near to Rome, clergy and people went forth to meet and welcome him. After an exile of nearly a year, John re-entered the city, November 14, 966. He said Mass in St. Peter's, and then once again took possession of the Lateran palace.3 With the usual paternal weakness of the Popes, instead of vigorously punishing the turbulent Romans, John simply endeavoured to gain their goodwill by showing them acts of kindness.4 There was one, how- ever, who justly looked on the outbreak with different eyes. That was the Emperor Otho. When he entered Rome, he straightway hanged the twelve " decarcones," sent " the consuls of the Romans " beyond the Alps, dug up and

1 " Roman i secundum consuetudinem illorum malignam .... alii alapas in facies ejus percutiebat, alii mantes nutis (nates nodis ? ) crucia- bantur." Bened,, ib. Cf. L. P.

2 Chron, Cass., ii. 9. 3 Bened., c. 39.

4 Ib. " Sepius P. salutabat populum ; gaudebat cum Romanos, et epulabatur cotidie."

288 JOHN XIII.

scattered to the winds the bones of Rofred and of another rebel, Stephen, the vestararius, and handed over the chief offender Peter, the prefect, into the hands of the Pope. Perhaps to requite the culprit for the insulting treatment he had meted out to him, John caused a punishment to be inflicted upon Peter that was at once ludicrous and painful. The prefect's beard was shaved off, and then he was hung by the hair of his head " to the horse of Constantine," that is, to the bronze equestrian statue of Marcus Aurelius, which is still to be seen on the Capitol, " that those who looked upon him might henceforth fear to do as he had done." 1 Taken down thence, he was placed, naked, upon an ass with his face to its tail, and his hands beneath it. A bag of feathers was placed upon his head and two more at his thighs. With a bell fastened round its neck, the ass was driven through the city with its strange burden. After being thus exposed to the ridicule of the people, Peter was cast into a dungeon, and finally sent by the emperor into Germany {ultra montes).

While we may deprecate the manner in which, in some particulars, Otho administered justice, or allowed it to be administered, one cannot but feel that a little more of it, properly applied, would have tamed the turbulence of the Romans, and saved themselves as well as the Popes from much suffering and misery. For, though powerful in words, and against a ruler who was generally old and always merciful, the Romans were never a match for the Germans, and their childish violence was again and again severely punished. However, because the meed of justice was meted out by Germans, the patriotic indignation of the monk of Soracte was aroused, and his barbarous chronicle closes with a lament for the decay of Rome's might. "Woe to Rome, oppressed and crushed by so many nations ! Even by a Saxon king hast thou been 1 So says the L. P.

JOHN XIII. 289

taken ; thy people have been put to the sword ; thy strength reduced to naught. Thy gold and silver have they carried away in their purses. Once wert thou a mother ; now thou art but the daughter ! " And here we may note that John XIII. is the last Pope of whom anything is said by another author whose words in connection with the Popes of the tenth century have been up to this frequently quoted, viz. the bishop of Cremona. Both Liutprand and Benedict are interesting in their way. The very extraordinary Latinity of the monk of Soracte makes his short chronicle striking; and if the pages of Liutprand are scarcely historical, they are at least anything but dull. The kind of story he loves to tell, and the abusive language he uses so freely, make his writings resemble those of certain of the Humanists of the Renaissance.

In company with Otho and bishops from various parts synods, of Italy and Germany, John held several synods at different g6?' times for the needs of the Church. Among other things it was decided in a council held at Rome in the beginning of 967 that Grado was to be the patriarchal and metropolitan church of the whole of Venetia.1 And in a similar council at Ravenna (April 967), Otho again "restored to the apostolic Pope John the city and territory of Ravenna and many other possessions which had for some time been lost to the Popes."2 But Otho had no intention that the granting should be all on one side. Now that he had a Pope after his own heart, he would have his own aims forwarded. He procured the extension of the jurisdiction of the archbishop of Magdeburg.3 In the bull which John

1 Dandolo, Chron., v. 14, n. 17.

2 Cont. Reg., 967 : " Apostolico J. urbem et terram Ravennantium aliaque complura, multis retro temporibus Romanis pontificibus ablata, reddidit."

3 Ep. 2; Jaffe, 3715. John sent the pallium to its archbishop Adalbert (id., 3728) in the following year.

VOL. IV. 19

29O JOHN XIII.

published for this purpose, he was careful to call attention to the fact that, " Rome, the head of the whole world and the Universal Church," which in the past had been oppressed by wicked men, had been reverently restored to its former position by "our son, Otho," whom he designates as "great and thrice blessed," and proceeds to call "the third after Constantine, who had very greatly exalted the Roman Church." Further, to ensure the peaceful succession of his son to all his power, the emperor in- duced John to write to the youthful King Otho to invite him to come to Rome to receive the imperial crown l at Christmas, imperial After this journey to Ravenna the Pope returned to ofOthoiT, Rome, while Otho went from one part of Italy to another, consolidating his power therein. He soon cast his eye on Southern Italy, still distracted by the rival pretensions of Italian counts, Greek emperors, and Saracen robbers. He would also add that to his crown. At first he tried to effect his end by diplomacy; and, as was usual with him, his diplomatic efforts consisted in marriage negotiations. Envoys were sent to Constantinople to arrange a marriage between his son and the Greek princess, Theophania, the daughter of Romanus II. and the step-daughter of Nicephorus Phocas, the reigning emperor. Whilst these schemes were in progress, the youthful Otho came into Italy, and was with his father most warmly received " on the steps of St. Peter's " (December 21, 967), after he had been welcomed with the usual laudes at the third milestone from the city " by a very great number of senators with crosses and banners (signa)" 2 On Christmas Day, in presence of his father, " our son received the crown, which raised him

1 Cont. Reg., 967. Before completing the entries for this year, another of our authorities (the continuator of Regino)laid down his pen.

2 Annalista Saxo, 967.

JOHN XIII. 291

to the imperial dignity (in imperii dignitatem), from the blessed apostolic lord," as Otho I. proudly wrote, " from Campania, near Capua, on the 15th of the Kalends of February (January 18), to the dukes and the other prefects of our commonwealth." *

Various synods were held before the emperors left Rome, in which, sometimes at their request, the Pope took several German monasteries under his special protection, or decided that in some cases they were to remain for ever " under the patronage (miindiburdium) of the kings or emperors." 2 And, in order to further Otho's views with regard to the marriage of his son, he addressed (968) a letter to Nicephorus to urge the suit.

Before the dispatch of this document, Otho had sent Marriage Liutprand of Cremona to Constantinople in the hope that tions, 968. the astuteness of that prelate would win for him as a marriage portion with Theophania what he had failed in a first attempt to win by the sword, viz. South Italy.3 Liutprand reached Constantinople June 4, 968. The ill-feeling with which lie was greeted was only deepened when Nicephorus received the Pope's letter addressed not to the Emperor of the Romans, but to the " Emperor of the Greeks." 4 " Was it not unpardonable," it was said, " to have called the universal emperor of the Romans, the august, great, and only Nicephorus, 'emperor of the Greeks,' and a barbarian, a pauper, 'emperor of the Romans ' ? " Greek as they were, the emperors of Con-

1 Ap. Widukind, iii., c. 70. This is the last event chronicled by the poetical nun of Gandersheim.

2 Jaffe, 3722, etc.

3 Already in March 968, Otho had tried and failed to take Bari, " the real capital of the Greek possessions in Italy" ; for, after the Emperor Louis II. had recovered it from the Saracens, the Greeks again obtained possession of it (875). This attempt of Otho seems to have been made when the empires were at peace.

4 Liut., Legatio, c. 47.

292 JOHN XIII.

stantinople prided themselves on being the descendants of the Roman conquerors of the world, and on being emperors of the Romans. And when Liutprand ventured to ask for the hand of Theophania (or Theophano) * for the young Otho, and to suggest that her dowry should be the provinces, or themes as they were then called, of Longobardia (Apulia) and Calabria,2 he was haughtily informed that for a Porphyrogenita to be allied to a barbarian was such an unheard-of thing, that it could only be entertained if, instead of asking for a dowry, Otho were to restore to the emperor at Constantinople not only Rome and Ravenna, but all the country south of those places. If he would have simply the emperor's friendship, he must at least give up the city of Rome and its territory, and leave them free, i.e., put them at the disposal of the Basileus? The Pope too was abused in the most un- measured language not only because he had communicated with "the adulterous and sacrilegious son" of Alberic (John XII.), but especially because he had not addressed Nicephorus as emperor of the Romans.4 And yet, retorted Liutprand, as you have changed your language, your manners, and your clothes, the Pope (simplicitate clarus) naturally thought you had no regard for the name of Romans ! The mission of the. caustic prelate failed com- pletely. The emperor would not condescend to write back to the Pope with his own hand, but sent him a

1 She was probably the eldest child of Romanus II. and Theophano, and was born about 956.

- According to Schlumberger, Longobardia comprised Apulia, the country about Otranto (Hydruntum) in the heel of Italy, and the district north of the mountainous tableland known as La Sila, in the toe of Italy ; while south of that district was Calabria. These districts had for the most part come into the power of the Greeks in 885, under Basil the Macedonian.

3 Le£at.,c. 15-17.

* Unfortunately we have only Liutprand for all this ; ib.y 47-51.

JOHN XIII. 293

threatening letter written by his brother.1 Liutprand, on his side, when he had to leave Constantinople, consoled himself by wishing that the Pope, " to whom belongs the care of all Christians, would send to Nicephorus a letter like a sepulchre, white without, but full of dead men's bones within. Let him inside the letter reproach him for gaining the empire by perjury and adultery ; let him summon him to a synod and excommunicate him if he disobey." 2

But Nicephorus, as well to annoy Otho and the Pope as Nicephorus

_ _ . . interferes

to strengthen his influence in South Italy, endeavoured to with the extend the jurisdiction of the patriarch of Constantinople of the Pope in that locality. It was during the iconoclast troubles that itaiy. Leo the Isaurian forcibly withdrew the churches of Apulia and Calabria (with their metropolitan sees of S. Severina and Reggio) from the jurisdiction of the See of Rome, and made them dependent upon the patriarch of Constan- tinople. This usurpation did not cease with the image- breaking controversy. By the action of Leo V., the Armenian, the Latin rite was practically stamped out of Calabria in the beginning of the ninth century. And now, to further the same policy, Nicephorus "ordered the patriarch of Constantinople to transform the bishopric of Otranto into a metropolitan see, and no longer to tolerate the Divine Mysteries being said in Latin in any part of Apulia •or Calabria. They were to be said in Greek only. The patriarch Polyeuctos accordingly addressed an order to the head of the Church of Otranto giving him authority to consecrate bishops in the churches of Acerenza, Tursi, Gravina, Matera, and Tricarico, all incontestably dependent on the Church of Rome." So at any rate writes Liutprand,3

1 Legate c. 56.

2 lb., 52. "Et quoniam Christianorum omnium salus ad R. Papae pertinet sollicitudinem, mittat Nicephoro dominus papa epistolam sepulchris omnino similem."

3 Leg., c. 62. Cf. Parthey, Notitia; episc, x. 223.

294 JOHN XIII.

and in this case there is confirmatory evidence of his assertions. War. Thus baulked, Otho again had recourse to the sword

before the close of 968. Supported by Pandulf, he reaped some slight successes against the Greeks in Calabria. To please his ally " the prince of Beneventum and Capua, and marquis and duke of Spoletum and Camerinum," as he is described in the papal bull, he induced John to make Beneventum into a metropolitan see (969).1 This, no doubt, the Pope and the Roman council which acted along with him were the more ready to do, since the position of the Latin Church in South Italy, which we have just seen attacked by the Byzantine basileus, would be thereby strengthened.2 All through this troublous period in South Italy conflicts in the realm of ecclesi- astical jurisdiction between Greek and Latin churchmen were going on just as keenly as the struggles between the Greek and Latin races in the sphere of political organisation. The Greeks endeavoured by every device to improve their military grasp of their conquests in Apulia and Calabria by increasing their ecclesiastical hold of those districts ; with the result that, through the natural opposition of the Latins to their schemes, ecclesi- astical difficulties added to the other miseries of south Italy during these unhappy times. Marriage Whilst the war in south Italy was being prosecuted by 972. C H Otho in a desultory manner, the Emperor Nicephorus was murdered (December 969), and his assassin, John Zimisces, became emperor of the East. Naturally anxious to make friends, Zimisces granted what Nicephorus had refused. The young Princess Theophania, or Theophano, who was

1 Muratori, Ann., 969. Ep. 15.

2 Cf. Diplomata reg. ct imp. Germ., ii. 879, and Gay (VItalier P- 356)> wn° gives this reference.

JOHN XIII. 295

about the same age (16) as the youthful emperor, and of remarkable beauty, was sent over (972) to Italy with a splendid escort and dowry. First crowned by the Pope (April 14), the youthful pair were then married by him, in St. Peter's, " to the great joy of all Italy and Germany." x

Soon after the marriage, Otho I., with his son and Deaths of daughter-in-law, returned to Germany after an absence of otho.*™ six years — years during which his presence had brought peace if not liberty to the successor of the Apostles. The Pope did not survive the emperor's departure many months (f September 6, 972) ; nor did Otho I. himself long outlive the Pope (f May 7, 973). With him, says his epitaph2 with no little truth, died also the peace of the world.

The power of Otho I. helped in no small degree the Bohemia, spread of Christianity among the Slavs. Among those of Bohemia it had entered in the ninth century from Germany and Moravia; and their duke, Borziwoi, had been baptized by St. Methodius. By the apostacy of some of his succes- sors, the young Church had, as usual, much to suffer. It was in trouble when Otho forced the pagan Boleslaus I., the Cruel, who had assassinated his brother, to give a free hand to the teachers of Christianity (950). Under his son, the second Boleslaus (967-999), known as the Pious, and equally acknowledging the supremacy of Otho I., the Church made great headway. The anonymous Annalista Saxo gives3 us certain details of the relations of John XIII. with the young Church of Bohemia. A sister of Boleslaus, a nun, or one at least who had taken a vow of virginity {virgo sacra), of the name of Mada or Mlada, came to

1 Widukind, iii. 73. Cf. Bened., c. 38. Annal. Hildesh., 972, etc.

2 " Pax sublata perit, cum maximus Otho recessit." Efiitap., ap. P. L., t. 142, p. 968.

3 Ann., 967. " Mada, virgo sacra, litteris erudita."

296 JOHN XIII.

Rome on a pilgrimage in the days of John XIII., and was by that pontiff very kindly received. Whilst in Rome Mada studied the cloistral life ; and the Pope, seeing that she was a woman of no ordinary type, made her an abbess of the order of St. Benedict, and, changing her name into Maria, sent her back to Bohemia with a bull in which he authorised the foundation of the bishopric of Prague in accordance with the wishes of Boleslaus. The Pope assured the duke that he was thankful to God for the spread of His Church, and " by the authority of Blessed Peter " granted the request which Boleslaus had made through his sister, and decreed that the church of SS. Vitus and Wenceslaus should be the new cathedral church. At the church of St. George a convent of nuns was to be established, over which the duke's sister was to preside. The Latin and not the Slavonic rite was to be followed ; 1 and one who was well instructed in Latin literature had to be chosen as the first bishop. The instruc- tions of the Pope were duly carried out. A Saxon priest and monk named Ditmar, distinguished for his eloquence and learning, was selected by Boleslaus, both because he was known to him, and especially "because of his perfect knowledge of the Slavonic language." Following the wishes of their ruler, the clergy and nobles elected Ditmar; and Otho, at the request of Boleslaus, caused him to be consecrated by the archbishop of Mayence. His diocese of Prague remained subject to the arch-diocese of Mayence till the middle of the fourteenth century. Despite the devoted work of Ditmar and his successor, Adalbert, it was not till the middle of the following century

1 Ann.y 967. " Non secundum ritum aut sectam Bulgarica: gentis vcl Rusia?, aut Slavonics linguae, sed magis sequens constituta .... apostolica," etc. The authenticity of this bull is in dispute ; but of course it must be accepted till it has been proved spurious.

JOHN XIII. 297

that the savage pagan manners of the Bohemians were to any considerable extent modified.1

Though it is true that Miecislas I. (or Miechko), the first Poland. Polish duke or ruler of whom any certain particulars are known, also acknowledged the suzerainty of Otho, became a Christian (966), and founded a bishopric at Posen,2 the statement that the duke, in conjunction with John XIII., founded two metropolitan and seven other episcopal sees, has a merely legendary foundation.3

If John XIII. is connected with this country by England. ■documents, if not certainly spurious, at least of doubtful authenticity,4 he is also connected with it by others the genuineness of which is undoubted. His bull supporting the action of King Edgar and Archbishop Dunstan against the canons of Winchester has been quoted under John XII. Edgar's regard for St. Dunstan, who had been abbot of Glastonbury, moved that monarch, who, to the great utility of the country, showed special favour to monks in general, to bestow in particular great possessions on Glastonbury, •"which he ever loved beyond all others."5 " Recollecting, however," continues William of Malmesbury, who has pre- served these documents for us, " how great is the temerity of human inconstancy, and on whom it is likely to creep, and fearing lest anyone hereafter should attempt to take away these privileges from this place or eject the monks,

1 Hergenroether, Hist, de Peglise, iii. 517 f.

2 A late list (seemingly of the sixteenth century) of the archbishops of Gnesen says that, during the reign of Miecislas, Wilibald was made its first archbishop by Pope John XIII. See the list, ap. Bielowski, Monumenta Polon. Hist., iii. 405.

3 Hergenroether, id., 521 f. ; Alzog, Universal Church Hist., ii. I79f. For the legend see Bielowski, ib., ii. 482 ; and iii. 783.

4 E.g. the bull {Quia littcris) confirming the privileges of St. Peter's monastery, Westminster. Jaffe, 3712.

6 W. Malmes., Gesta Reg., ii., p. 11 18 f. Bohn's translation is here used for the most part.

298 JOHN XIII.

he sent this charter of royal liberality to the renowned lord, Pope John (971), .... begging him to corroborate these grants by an apostolical bull. Kindly receiving the lega- tion, the Pope, with the assenting voice of the Roman council, confirmed what had been already ordained, by writing an apostolical injunction, terribly hurling on the violators of them, .... the vengeance of a perpetual anathema." Malmesbury then quotes the text of the bull, which sets forth that, at the request " of Edgar, the glorious king of the Angles, and of Dunstan, archbishop of the holy church of Canterbury," the Pope took Glastonbury "to the bosom of the Roman Church, and placed it under the protection of the Holy Apostles, and (promised) to support and confirm its immunities as long as it should remain in the same conventual order in which it now flourishes." The bull concludes by invoking, the judgment of God on any unrepentant violator of the monastery's privileges. On this pronouncement Malmesbury thought fit to comment thus : " Let the despisers of so terrible a sentence consider well what a weighty sentence of excommunication hangs over their heads. To Blessed Peter the Apostle and Prince of the Apostles Christ gave both the power of binding and loosing, and the keys of the kingdom of heaven. But to everyone it must be clear and obvious that the vicar of this Apostle and chief heir of his power is the president of the Roman Church. Over this church John, of holy memory, presided in his lifetime, as he lives to this day in glorious recollection, promoted thereto by the choice of God and of all the people. If then the ordinance of St. Peter be binding, that of Pope John must be so likewise."

At the same time (971), according to the same historian, John dispatched, M from motives of paternal regard," a letter to the ealdorman (dux) JEUrlc adjuring him, by the love of SS. Peter and Paul and by reverence for his successor, to

JOHN XIII. 299

refrain from plundering Glastonbury, "which is acknow- ledged to belong solely to, and to be under the protection of, the Roman pontiff." " It would have been becoming, from the fact that you are its neighbour, that by your assistance it might have been enriched ; but, shameful to say, it is impoverished by your hostility." Stubbs,1 with no small degree of probability, would refer this letter to John XV., as a West Saxon ealdorman named ^Elfric is known to have begun his official life c. 982, whereas no such noble is known in 971. However that may be, the letter shows the lawlessness of the times, and the hope that what could not be effected in the way of keeping order in the land by the local primate or sovereign, could be done by the far-off Pope of Rome.

Among the many privileges 2 granted by John XIII. to Papal vk

in Ger-

churches and monasteries (including several to places many. within the Spanish March) which we cannot stop to enu- merate, is an important one in connection with the church of Trier. We have seen that by the decrees of former Popes the archbishop of Mayence was their vicar in Germany. But the bull in question provides that the * archbishop of Trier, in synods of Gaul and Germany, shall sit next to the papal legates, proclaim the decision of the synods, and promulgate their decrees, as the vicar of the Apostolic See in those parts.3 If there is one thing which documents of this sort make very clear, it is that, while at this period there was no thought of anything but one

1 Memorials of St. Dunstan^ p. 396.

2 In one (ep. 17, September 29, 970) for the monastery of St. Vincent of Metz, we find perhaps the first grant of pontificals. Its abbot was granted the use, under certain conditions, of the dalmatic and sandals. What value was attached to these privileges may be seen from a remark of Sigebert of Gemblours in his Vita Deoderici, c. 14, ap. M. G. SS., iv., to the effect that the papal privilege : " sicut est rerum nostrarum immunitas."

3 Jaffe, 3736 (2864).

300 JOHN XIII.

Catholic Church in the East and West, of which the Pope was the head, his supremacy, because of his being Patriarch also of the West, was more practically manifest in the countries of his patriarchate. The mon- Even of this dark age of Rome, papal bulls conferring Novaiisa. privileges are anything but rare, and attention has been called to them under almost every biography. But of the letters sent to Rome to ask for those privileges but few have survived the ravages of time. The chronicle of the monastery of Novaiisa (Nova Lux), near Susa, has, how- ever, preserved one, directed apparently to John XIII. It merits citation on various grounds, as it shows not only the perils of monastic life in the tenth century, but the tyranni- cal power of the local "count," and the helplessness of imperial law when once the powerful emperor himself was absent.

Belegrimus, the lowly abbot, and all the monks of the monastery of St. Peter, Novaiisa, near the confines of Italy, present their deferential respects and continual prayers to the Lord John, the illustrious guardian {patronus) of the whole Christian Church and the true faith, and the author of all true belief, whom, after Himself, "the Lord has deigned to raise to the most holy seat of Peter and Paul, the Princes of the Apostles." After reminding the Pope of the founda- tion of the monastery by the patrician Abbo (r. 739), of its destruction by the Saracens, and of its rebuilding by Adalbert, the father of King Berenger, the abbot goes on to say that, as the monastery was always under the immediate jurisdiction of the Popes, he must appeal to John, " the rector of all Europe," against the oppression of the Marquis Ardoin. If the Pope will not help them, they cannot live, as they are ever being plundered by Ardoin, who at first brought forward a forged deed to justify his conduct. However, the Emperor Otho, " the rector of

JOHN XIII. 301

many provinces," had caused that document to be burnt, and a new grant to be drawn up, which he had confirmed with his own hand; and he had warned the marquis to cease interfering with the rights of the monastery. But when Otho had returned " to the province of his nativity," Ardoin treated the monastery worse than ever. Hence the Pope is entreated to lay the matter before the emperor, and himself to excommunicate Ardoin. Their hopes are in the pontiff, because they have been assured that neither gold nor threats can make him leave the path of justice. In conclusion they add : " Nor would we keep from your knowledge, Holy Father, how one of our old monks, according to his custom, went one night into the church to pray, and was suddenly overcome by an unusual sleep. He assures us that then in a vision he saw a man clad in white robes, with a golden dagger in one hand and a silver cross in the other. After thrice striking him on the head, the apparition roused him from his slumber, and bade him tell all the brethren that they should implore the help of their Roman protector."1 How far the Pope was affected by this appeal is not known.

The history of the monastery at Mouzon, besides telling Mouzon. of the lawlessness of the times, tells also of the reforms which were being carried out by Adalberon, archbishop of Rheims, of whom we shall hear much in the sequel. The house was originally a convent of nuns dedicated to Our Lady. The prevailing anarchy — no worse, it would seem (to judge from recent events in the same country), in its effect on religious houses than a tyrannical democracy, the worst of all forms of government — made it impossible for the good sisters to maintain themselves in their convent. To the nuns succeeded a college of canons, whose lives do not appear to have been exemplary. Imitating the policy 1 Ep. ap. Chron. Novatic, Append, c. 3.

302 JOHN XIII.

which St. Dunstan was carrying out in England, Adalberon resolved to replace them by monks. The canons were given the usual choice. They had to embrace the monastic life or go. Most of them preferred the latter alternative. In November 971 they were replaced by monks; and, in order that they might live, as the monastery was in a ruinous condition, the archbishop endowed the house with property he had inherited from his father. Anxious that what he had done, not only for Mouzon and other smaller monasteries, but particularly for his ** archmonastery " x of St. Remy, should receive the highest sanction; and not content with the diplomas granted in their behalf by Lothaire, he went to Rome (December 971) to obtain the protection of the Pope against the king himself. And " inas- much as he was a man distinguished as well by the nobility of his birth and the energy of his character, as by the purity of his life, he was received with the greatest respect by Pope John, of blessed memory."2 Adalberon begged the Pope to confirm the property he had made over to the monastery of St. Remy, " in the intent that there the poor might be cared for, and his own memory live among God's servants in the monastery."3 John readily complied with the archbishop's request, and Adalberon returned home with the drafts of the privileges he desired. The docu- ments4 themselves, inscribed on the usual papyrus of the papal chancellary, and duly signed by John XIII., "known as the White Hen," were forwarded to France in due course. 5

1 So it is called by John, Jaffe, 3763 (2884).

2 Richer, Hist., iii. 25. 3 lb., 26.

4 Jaffe, 3762, 3763 ; P. L., t. 135. They are dated April 23, 972.

6 " Secundum Romanas dignitatis consuetudinem paratis scriptisque ex papyreo tomo chartis." Hist. Monast. Mosom., L. ii., cc. 6, 7, ap. M. G. SS., xiv. Cf. Richer, Hist., iii. 25-30. I have followed Lot,Z*\r derniers Carol., p. 69 n., in the way in which he reconciles the monastic history with Richer.

JOHN XIII. 303

Shortly before his death, John XIII. met, and had the dis- Gerbert. cernment to recognise the merits of the young Benedictine monk Gerbert, who was to prove himself the most famous scholar of his age, and was one day to sit on the chair of Peter as Sylvester II. Brought to Rome (970) by Borel, count of Barcelona and duke of the Spanish March, his industry and zeal for learning did not escape the observa- tion of John ; and, finding that the youth had a knowledge of mathematics, he recommended him to Otho as a teacher of that science, " because music and astronomy were then utterly unknown in Italy."1 To oblige the emperor, who promptly recognised the value of such a scholar as a professor, John obtained permission of Borel to allow his protege to remain with Otho for a short time, on the under- standing that the young man was then to be sent back with honour to his first patron. But of all this we shall speak again when we have to write of Gerbert himself.

John,2 who, as we have said, died September 6, 972, and Epitaph of who left behind him the enviable surname of " the Good," 3 was buried in St. Paul's. His epitaph, says Duchesne, which used to be " between the Holy Door and the first column," is now in the museum of the abbey. It reads thus 4 : —

" Pontificis summi hie clauduntur membra Johannis, Qui prudens pastor persolvens debita mortis, Istic premonuit moriens sua membra locari, Quo pietate Dei resolutus nexibus atris Egregii Pauli mentis conscendat in ethra,

1 Richer {Hist, iii. 43 f.), from whom all this is taken.

2 Promis (p. 94) assigns three types of silver coins to John XIII. On the obverse nearly all have the names of the Pope and the emperor, and on the reverse " + Scs Petrus " and " Roma." But the one of which Schlumberger (Un Empereur Byzantin) gives an illustration (p. 599) has " + Ottoni Imper" with a cross in the middle on the obverse, and on the reverse " + Scs Petrus Ro," with " P Joh P" in the centre.

3 Johannes, " cognomento Bonus." Gerbert., Cone. Rem., c. 43.

4 L. P., ii. 254.

304 JOHN XIII.

Inter apostolicos ccelorum gaudia metat,

Gaudeat, exultet, sociatus coetibus almis.

Dicite, corde pio relegentes carmina cuncti,

Christe tui famuli misertus scelera purga,

Sanguine qui sancto redemisti crimine mundum.

Hie vero summus pontifex Johannes in Apostolica sede

Sedit annos VII. Depositions ejus dies VIII. Idus Septembris

Ab Incarnatione Domini anni DCCCCLXXII."

rt Here, where in death the good pastor would have them placed, are the remains of Pope John. By the mercy of God and the merits of St. Paul, freed from the bonds of death, may he hence ascend into heaven, and share in the happiness of the blessed above. Do you who piously read this epitaph pray that Christ, who with His sacred Blood redeemed the world, may have pity on His servant and free him from his sins."

BENEDICT VI.

A.D. 972-974.

Sources. — Among the authors we have now to use to supply the place of strictly contemporary authorities, the first position must be assigned to Hermann (or Herimann), the fam ous monk of Reichenau (Augiensis). Born of noble parents in Suabia in 10 13, he was from his early childhood afflicted with paralysis, which caused a shrinking of his limbs. From this misfortune he is often referred to as Hermanus Contractus. But, if his body was crippled, his mind was strong \ and in the monastery (Reichenau) where he made his monastic profession, he soon acquired a great reputa- tion for learning. The writer (Berthold of Constance, his disciple) who continued his Chronicle says he excelled all his contemporaries in learning and virtue. Naturally he became a teacher in his monastery. Of the various works he left behind him, the one best known is his Chronicle, from the creation of the world to 1054. The judgment and exactness displayed in its latter portion especially, causes Hermann to be regarded as one of the best of the medieval chroniclers. It may be read ap. M. G. SS., v., and its continuation (1054-1066), #., xiii.; both are to be found ap. P. £., t. 143.

Justly distinguished as the author of the best of the Universal Histories written in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, was the Benedictine Ekkehard, abbot of the monastery of Uraugia (or Ura), now Aura, near Kissingen, in Bavaria. He first brought down his work to 11 16, and then by a series of most valuable additions to 1125. In company with the German crusaders,

VOL. IV. 305 20

306 BENEDICT VI.

he visited the Holy Land in iioi. His Chronicon Universale (M. G. SS.% vi., with anonymous continuations, id., xvi. and xvii., and ap. P. Z., t. 154) shows that he made good use of the best materials, and that he had a great love for his country and respect for the Pope. He died some time after 1125.

A writer who drew upon Ekkehard was the so-called Annalista Saxo. This fact concerning the anonymous annalist induced one of his editors, viz. G. Eccard {Corpus Hist., i., No. x., the edition here cited), to attribute his work to Ekkehard. But it is now known that the abbot of Ura was not the author of the annals which extend from 741 to 1139, and which are assigned to the Annalista Saxo. They are thought to have been drawn up in the diocese of Halberstadt ; and though but a compilation, may be relied on (ap. M. G. SS., vi.). Six of Benedict's bulls are given in the P. Z., t. 135.

Modern Works. — In 1856 Ferrucci wrote Investigazioni .... su la persona .... di Bonifazio VII., ftgliuolo di Ferruccio. The first words of his preface show the object of his work : " Vi restituisco, O Romani, un concittadino che giacque per otto secoli sotto il peso di mostruose calunnie." Gregorovius de- scribes the work as an attempt to "whitewash his blackamoor namesake " ; and even its author declares, in figurative language, that if Boniface VII. (antipope) was not "a dove," he was not " a bloody vulture," but was perchance " a crow " ! More recent investigations have put Ferucci somewhat out of date.

Benedict : The historical darkness which lies thick over the next

election

and conse- thirteen years cannot be said to be lessened by the theories which many moderns have invented to illumine the dark- ness. They not only tell us of parties, aristocratic, plebeian, German, Greek, and Italian or national — parties which, in- deed, no doubt existed — but they devise combinations of these parties which have no other foundation than the views of their authors. And so Ferrucci would make Benedict VI. the candidate of the nobility, and (the antipope) Boni- face VII. the choice of the people, following the guidance

BENEDICT VI. 307

of Constantinople. If actual evidence, however, is to be our light, it would seem that the centre of affairs in Rome was still the aristocratic party only. Their one object was to secure the election of a Pope after their own heart ; that is, of a Pope under whom their own particular privileges would have the greatest latitude. Some, no doubt, of the nobles were attacned to those among the clergy — probably by far the greatest section — who looked to the German emperors to curb the licence of their order. At any rate, on the death of John XIII., the choice of the majority, presumably anxious to suit the wishes of Otho, fell upon Benedict, a Roman, the son of Hildebrand, and cardinal-deacon of the round church of St. Theodore,1 at the base of the Palatine Hill, and not far from St. George, in Velabro. He belonged to the eighth region of the city, the region which used to be known as the Forum Romanum, and which, from the fact of its embracing the Capitol, is described in the catalogue of Est, whence we have this item of information, as Sub Capitolio. Although the division of the city into twelve regions seems to have begun in the tenth century, the old system of fourteen civil regions and seven ecclesiastical ones endured till the eleventh century. The eighth region here referred to was the old civil region.

As Benedict was not consecrated till January 19, 973, it is concluded that the delay was caused by the necessity of awaiting the approval of Otho.

After the decisive defeat sustained at Lechfeld (955) by Piligrimof the Hungarians, they entered into peaceful relations with lhe Hun- the Christian nations around them. Among the zealous ^XXZXi%- preachers who availed themselves of the opportunity thus

1 This last fact is taken from the catalogue of Sigeric, which is a very useful list as far as it goes. Cf. the catalogue of Est, etc., ap. L. P., ii. 255.

308 BENEDICT VI.

afforded them to instruct the heathen Hungarians in the saving and civHising truths of Christianity, was Piligrim, bishop of Passau.1 He was one of those great bishops who did so much for Germany in the tenth century. In dealing with the Hungarians, he followed the teachings of history, and made his arrangements for effecting their conversion on the lines laid down by St. Gregory the Great in the case of the English.2 So successful were his first efforts, that he was able to report to the Pope, whom he addressed as " the universal bishop of the Holy Roman See .... supreme bishop of bishops," that already about five thousand of the nobler sort of the Hungarians had embraced the faith. Moreover, the captives who had been taken to Hungary from every part of the Christian world were now allowed to practise their faith in peace. In a word, the whole nation of the Hungarians was ready to embrace Christianity. The necessity he was under of preaching the faith to them himself was the sole reason, continued Piligrim, which prevented him from following his heart's desire, and in person communicating with the Pope on this important subject. It appeared to him that the time had come when the Pope should re-establish the hierarchy, subject to Lorch, which had existed in Roman times. He therefore begged the Pope to send him the pallium which his predecessor in the See of Lorch used to receive "from the glorious primates of the principal see." He will thus

1 At the junction of the Inn with the Danube, and now a frontier town of Bavaria. Bishop Piligrim aspired to revive the ancient See of Lorch (now Enns, though there is a village of Lorch close to), some fifty miles towards the south-east from Passau. Hence, in his letter to Benedict VI., he styles himself " episcopus Laurea- censis."

2 <l Quemadmodum in gestis Anglorum didici." Ep. Pilig., No. 33, p. 37, ap. Codex, diplom. et epist. reg. Bohemia, Prague, 1907. This beautifully printed work is edited at the expense of the Bohemian parliament.

BENEDICT VI. 309

be able to proceed with his work in a canonical way, and the Pope will have the glory of receiving a new flock into the fold of Christ. Then, because there were heretics about who corrupted where they ought to have enlightened, he proceeded to make to Benedict a very clear profession of faith. In conclusion, he begged the Pope, "whose name is celebrated all over the Church," to let him know how he must deal with the converts.

Unfortunately, the document which purports to be an answer to this important letter, and which is variously attributed to Benedict VI. and to Benedict VII.,1 is regarded as a forgery, so that it cannot be stated what share, if any, either of those two Popes had in the great work so well inaugurated by Piligrim of Passau (971-991).

Although, faute de mieux% some bulls are assigned to Privileges. Benedict VI. which may belong to some other Benedict, still, a few documents, which certainly bear his name, have reached us. At the request of Lothaire, the king of the Franks, and of his wife, Benedict took under his special protection the monastery of Blandin, between the Schelde (Scheldt) and the Lys,2 and confirmed the privileges of various other monasteries and churches. The authenticity of a bull3 in which Frederick, archbishop of Salzburg, and his successors are named vicars of the Pope in the provinces of Noricum and Pannonia, both Upper and Lower, is much debated.

Two silver coins, each inscribed with the names of the Coins Pope, Otho, Rome, and St. Peter, are supposed to have been coined by Benedict VI.

The only thing of further interest that remains for us to Death of tell of Benedict is his tragic death. The great Otho, whose 97e4n.e 1C '

1 Ep. 1, Bened. VII., ap. P. Z., t. 1 37 j Jaffe, t$77*>

2 Jaffe, 3776. 3 /A, 3767.

310 BENEDICT VI.

iron hand l had scarcely been powerful enough to crush out the turbulence of the Romans, died May 7, 973, and left the German and imperial crowns in the sole keeping of a boy of eighteen, Otho II. "And although he had already been anointed king, and had been declared (designatus) emperor by the Pope," the young Otho was again elected " by all the people," and all swore fealty to him.2 All, however, did not keep their troth, and in 974 the youthful emperor had to uphold his rights in arms against his cousin, Henry II., duke of Bavaria.

The emperor's youth and troubles were thought to be a favourable opportunity by a certain faction of the nobility, perhaps the party which was opposed to the influence of the emperors in the choice of the Popes. The heads of this party were Crescentius, or Cencius, the son of Theodora — Crescentius de Theodora — and the deacon Boniface Franco. The Pope was seized (c. June, 974) by one of the leaders of the party in opposition, viz. by Crescentius, and thrust into the Castle of St. Angelo, while the other, Franco, was proclaimed Pope in his stead as Boniface VII. The intruder (ifivasor), as he is justly called by one of the cata- logues,3 was a Roman, and the son of one Ferrutio. Light has recently been thrown on the subsequent course of events by an historical fragment discovered at Ivrea, and pub- lished by Bethmann.4 Duly informed of what had taken place, Otho II. dispatched Count Sicco to Rome. The imperial envoy at once demanded the release of the im- prisoned Pope. Fearful of losing the object of his am- bition, Boniface brought about the death of the hapless

1 "Erat autem hisdem imperatoribus (Otho I. and II.) potestas firmissimas, et robor eorum in regno Italico," says (c. 38) Benedict, barbarously but truly.

2 Practically the last words of Widukind, Res. Sax.

3 MS., Paris, 5140, ap. L. /'., ii. 257, n. I.

4 Reprinted, ib.

BENEDICT VI. 311

Benedict.1 He caused his rival to be strangled ; and found a priest,a certain Stephen,2 base enough to do the terrible deed. But so awful a crime filled the whole city with indignation, and Sicco had no difficulty in gathering together a force large enough to besiege St. Angelo. The strength of the place enabled Boniface to set his foes at defiance for no little time. But he fell at length into the hands of the im- perial missus, after between one and two months of usurped authority. Our brief fragment then concludes by saying that, in presence of the emperor's envoy, the Benedict (VII.) who now occupies the papal throne was elected, but was prevented from peaceably fulfilling the duties of his office by the machinations of Boniface.

To that "good or evil doer," to that Boniface or The fate o Maliface, as he is sometimes called, we shall recur when murderers, treating of Benedict VII. Meanwhile it will suffice to note Crescen-" here that, getting free in some way or other from Sicco, tms" he returned to Rome, again seized the chair of Peter, and seems to have met with a violent death. But his fellow-robber apparently died the death of the repentant thief. A Crescentius, son of a Theodora — most probably the same who with Franco took part against Benedict VI. — died, penitent, in the monastery of St. Alexius on the Aventine, which his family had enriched, and which still

1 " Strangulatus propter Bonifacium diaconum " ; L. P. The propter of the L. P., and of at least three other catalogues, is thus explained by the Ivrean fragment to mean that Benedict was killed by the con- trivance of Boniface. Cf. also Catal Aug., "De consilio Malifacii (Bonifatii) strangulatus est"; and Gerbert, Acta Concil. Rem., c. 28, " Horrendum monstrum Bonefacius, cunctos mortales nequitia superans, etiam prioris pontijicis sanguine cruentus."

2 The fragment. A thirteenth-century author, Ricobaldi of Ferrara, in his Compil. Chron., ap. R. I. SS.> ix., seems to have preserved some memory of the date of the murder : " B. VI. strangulatus fuit nocte natalis a Cynthio Stephani " ; Cynthius is the same as Cencius, and the "nocte natalis Stephani" is, no doubt, the feast of the Invention of St. Stephen, August 3.

312 BENEDICT VI.

preserves his epitaph. After telling us of his renown, of his father, John, and his mother, Theodora, it says that Christ led his soul captive, so that he became a monk. It concludes by begging all who read it to pray that he may at length get pardon of his sins. He died July 7, 984.1

Attention must now be called to the fact that no Pope of the name of Domnus (or Donus II.) had any existence at this time, though a Pope of that name is usually given as the successor of Benedict VI., not only in modern catalogues but in certain ancient ones. This conclusion would seem to be established by the following considera- tions : — No notice of any single performance of his has come down to us, although he is said to have reigned for a year and a half; those ancient authors who do mention Pope Domnus are not agreed as to his position in the list of the Popes ; he is not known to some of the earliest catalogues {e.g. that of Sigeric), to the Liber Pontificalis of Peter William, nor to the best-informed ancient writers {e.g. Gerbert) and chroniclers.2 Finally, it is impossible to find time for the insertion of the year and a half's reign which is assigned to him, nor can his existence be reconciled with the data of the " Sicco fragment." Besides, the origin of the mistaken addition of such a Pope can be satisfactorily explained. Jaffe gives the explanation of Giesebrecht to account for the imaginary Domnus; that of Duchesne :! is fuller and is the one here adopted. No doubt, in some of

1 The epitaph, ap. L. P., II. 256.

" Hie omnis quicumque legis rogitare memento, Ut tandem scelerum veniam mereatur habere.1' Cf. Marucchi, Basiliques de Komc, p. 199 f.

2 E.g. Herman. Contr., an. 974 ; Ekkehard, an. 974, " Post Johannem (XIII.) papain, Benedictus ordinatur i22U8, post quern item B 123"'" Pope Leo IX., ep. 3, mentions John XIII. and then the two Benedicts.

3 L. P., II., p. xviii. ; and p. 256, n. 4.

BENEDICT VI. 313

the earliest catalogues, the name of Benedict VII. would follow that of Benedict VI. immediately — no notice being taken of the intruder Boniface. Now, as Benedict VII. had been bishop of Sutri, he may have been written down in some contemporary papal catalogue as " Domnus de Sutri " simply. Later on, when some copyist thought that mention should be made of the antipope Boniface VII., that name was added to the Domnus de Sutri, and then the length of the reign of Benedict VI. was repeated after Domnus de Sutri. Hence, as a matter of fact, in some of the catalogues after Benedict VI. appears "Domnus de Suri, or de Sur " ; 1 then the addition dropped, and we find Domnus, Donus, or Bonus by itself. To make Donus II. from such abundant data was easy.

Near St. Peter's is a Campo Santo in charge of a German Epitaph (?). confraternity. Not far from this cemetery, which has been in use since the days of Leo IV., its rector, Mgr. de Waal, who has formed a museum of Christian antiquities there, discovered a fragment of an inscription which, as far as all appearances go, may well have formed part of the epitaph of Benedict VI. The difficulty in the way of its belonging to him, however, is that at this period the Popes were generally buried at the Lateran, and that, if he had been interred in the Vatican, it is hard to suppose, as Duchesne urges, that it would have escaped the notice of Peter Mallius.2

1 The following, from a newly published thirteenth- century catalogue, though so far accurate that it makes no mention of a Pope Donus, shows what confused motions of the papal succession at this period were then current : — " Johanne mortuo factus est papa Benedictus Sutrinus episcopus, et cum ipso in scismate quidam alius Benedictus, quern quidam nobilis Romanus suffocavit et procuravit Bonefatium fieri papam, sed praefatus Benedictus fultus imperatoris favore pre- valuit, et Bonefatius — fugit." Cron. Pont, et imp., ap. M. G. SS., xxxi., p. 213.

2 L. P., ii., p. 568, and p. 36, n. 27.

314 BENEDICT VI.

LICATA | SUB | ANTRO | IN (quo) (se) XTI | BENEDICTI | C (orpus?) (? sanctu) S | CLARUS | Q | DE | GE (nte) (? se) PULTUS ! ET | ACTU | P

The only statement that seems to stand out clearly from this fragment is that Benedict was a man illustrious by his birth and by his deeds.

BENEDICT VII.

A.D. 974-983.

Sources. — Twenty-eight bulls of Benedict VII. are printed in Migne, P. Z., t. 137.

A. FIRST glance at the Regesta of JafTe, and the sight of the Consecia- comparatively large number of documents there assigned to Benedict VII., would lead one to suppose that no little information concerning that Pope and his doings was available. But as most of the documents are but privileges, our knowledge of Benedict VII. is certainly not in proportion to the length of his reign. On the death of Benedict VI., the Emperor Otho II. and his mother were most anxious that he should be succeeded by the learned and pious Maieul, the fourth abbot of Cluny. Maieul stood high in the opinion of both emperor and Pope. John XIII. spoke1 of him as well known "as a religious man," and commended him and all the monasteries subject to his sway to the bishops of Gaul; and Benedict VII. gave him the isle of Lerins, so famous in the early history of monasticism in the West, with a monastery, on condition of a payment " of five silver solidi to the sepulchre of St.

1 Ep. 27. 315

316 BENEDICT VII.

Peter." l When the emperor pressed, the saint begged time to consider. He did not wish "to leave the little flock which it had pleased Christ to commit to him, but desired to live in poverty with Him who descended from the height of heaven and became poor." He prayed for guidance ; and his eyes by chance caught, on an open page of his New Testament, the words : " Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy and vain deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ" (Col. ii. 8). Taking this as the voice of God, he told the emperor that the virtues necessary for a Pope were not to be found in him, that he was not equal to so great a burden, and that he had nothing in common with the Romans, neither nation- ality nor manners. The emperor must look elsewhere ; for he will not accept the pontifical dignity, nor leave the flock already committed to his care. From this the monk Syrus,2 Maieul's biographer, very properly argues the great humility of God's servant, who, when asked by the greatest of earth's princes, would not accept the papal throne. And he takes occasion to add that what Maieul, though entreated, refused to accept, many, his inferiors both in learning and virtue, would move heaven and earth to get, though unasked. What sort of Pope the humble Benedictine abbot would have made, it is impossible to say ; but it may be doubted whether he had the necessary strength of character, or had had the sort of training which would have enabled him to cope with the difficulties of the times. As he thus failed with Maieul, the emperor probably instructed his envoy, Sicco, to secure the election of Benedict, bishop of Sutri, a Roman, and the son of David.

1 Jaffe, 3796.

2 Vit, iii. 8, ap. P. /.., t. 137. Syrus dedicated this biography to Odilo, Maieul's successor.

BENEDICT VII. 317

At any rate the Sicco fragment says that the imperial agent "substituted, in the place of the deceased pontiff Benedict, the Benedict who is now reigning, by the general election of all the Romans, supported by the authority of the presence of the emperor's envoy."1 This took place in October 974.

What exactly happened after this cannot be said to Flight of be well ascertained. If we are to follow the fragment, pope. Boniface must either have been released by Sicco after his capture,2 or must have escaped from his hands, for he succeeded in maintaining himself in the city for some time, and in preventing Benedict from carrying on the work of the Church at all peacefully. At length, however, the Pope proved too strong for the usurper, and he had to take refuge in flight. That before he fled he stripped St. Peter's of its treasures, and then carried them off with him, does not appear to be stated by any author before that retailer of unfounded stories, Martinus Polonus, in the second half of the thirteenth century. At any rate, after leaving Rome, Boniface betook himself to Constantinople,3 — a fact which has given occasion to some writers to suppose that the authorities at the Greek capital had promoted his interests. But it was only natural that he should fly there, as he could not be ignorant that, though Otho II. was married to a Greek princess, the Greek emperors regarded the ambitious Othos with suspicion, and would probably welcome one of their opponents.

1 " Eumque qui nunc est B. communi omnium Romanorum electione, presentis imperatorii nuntii auctoritate munita, priori mortuo substituit (Sicco)." Fragment, ap. L. P., ii. 257. The statement in the Chron. Cos., ii. 4, that Benedict was a relation of Prince Alberic, seems to be an addition to the original chronicle, and of no great authority. Cf. n. 5 to the same, ap. R. I. SS., iv. 341.

2 Supra, p. 311.

3 "Bonifacius .... expulsus, Constantinopolim postea petiit." Herm. Contr., 974.

318 BENEDICT VII.

As the usurper had flouted the lawful pontiff, it was but proper that his pretensions should be formally con- demned. Accordingly a numerous synod was convoked for the beginning of the year 975, and the ambitious conduct of Boniface therein denounced.1 The same assembly punished another usurper, viz. Theobald of Amiens, "who had appealed to the Holy See, and then failed to approach it."2 Othoii. Though its head had been forced to fly from Italy, the

comes into _. «•»»•* • <■» •«<

Italy, 980. faction of Boniface was not altogether quashed. Still, for many years Benedict managed to maintain himself against it by his own power. And it was just as well that he was able to rely upon himself, for he could not hope for aid from the emperor, who had to establish his own authority against his cousin, Henry II., duke of Bavaria, and against the Danes and Slavs. He was also engaged with Lothaire of France in settling who was to be master in Lorraine. The peace of Margut-sur-Chiers, in the department of Ardennes, decided that question in favour of Otho (July 980), and left him free to turn his attention to Italy, where some at least were as anxious to see him as he was to see them. On the one hand, Benedict now found himself very hard pressed, and begged Otho to come to his assistance ; and the emperor himself, on the other, had inherited his father's designs on Italy, and was anxious to clear its southern portion of both Greeks and Saracens.3

1 "Hie etiam fugatus et in magna synodo dampnatus." Gerbert, Concil. Rem., c. 28. Cf. Epp. Gerberti, Append. I., ed. Havet.

2 Ep. Adalb. Rem., ap. Labbe, ix. 72 1 . After refusing to appear at two provincial synods, the refractory bishop was excommunicated and deposed by Adalberon, archbishop of Rheims, in conjunction with the deacon Stephen, the Pope's legate and a friend of Gerbert (Sylvester II.). This was in July 975.

3 "Evocatus (Otto) a Papa, ut ecclesiie succurreret, in Italiam, ubi Apuliam et Calabriam Italian provincias ad jus Imperii Graecorum appendentes, ad Imperium Romanum conatus transferre,"— so writes

BENEDICT VII. 319

Accordingly, in the autumn he entered Italy with great pomp. There were with him, besides his mother, Adelaide, his wife, Theophano, with his newly born child, who was to be the famous Emperor Otho III., and the nobility of Germany, Conrad, king of Burgundy, Hugh Capet, and Adalberon of Rheims, with his protege, Gerbert. After spending Christmas in Ravenna, Otho moved on Rome (981). Benedict was soon firmly established on his throne,1 and that too apparently without bloodshed. For the story, repeated by some modern French2 and Italian historians, that Otho caused some of the rebellious Roman nobles to be massacred at a banquet, is destitute of any trustworthy basis.

Before Otho and his distinguished company left Rome, Council in where he celebrated Easter (March 27), various matters were settled in synod or otherwise, and various favours granted by the Pope to the emperor or his allies. A letter3 addressed to " all Catholic and orthodox archbishops, bishops, abbots, kings, princes, dukes, and counts, and to all the faithful all over the world," informs them that at a synod in St. Peter's, in presence of the most serene Emperor Otho, it had been solemnly decreed, in accordance with the sacred canons, that no money was to be exacted for the conferring of sacred orders from the lowest to the highest, "from the order of doorkeeper to that of the priesthood." And while the archbishops and metropolitans are urged loyally to carry out the provisions of the decree,

a continuator of Frodoard, ap. Duchesne, SS. R. F., cited by Muratori, Ann.,v'\\. 626. Cf. Richer, iii. 81 : "Otho .... Romam devenit suos revisurus, compressurus etiam, si qui forte essent tumultus." S. Odilo, in his Miracula Adalheidis, c. 2, ap. P. L., t. 142, pretends that Otho undertook this expedition deceived by the evil advice of his wife — "ejus pravio ingenio, deteriori consilio deceptus."

1 Annal. Colon., 981, ap. M. G. SS., i. "Apostolicus in sedem receptus est."

2 E.g. Zeller, Hist. d'Allemagne, ii. 400. 3 Ep*. 17, p. 336.

320 BENEDICT VII.

those who are seeking episcopal consecration are told to come to Rome for it, if they cannot get it gratuitously from their metropolitans. We shall see many more such solemn decrees issued by the Popes, before observing any practical diminution in the widely spread vice of simony.

Hugh Capet, duke of the Franks, who had come to Italy

principally with the intent of forming an alliance with

Otho against his sovereign, Lothaire, took advantage of

his stay in Rome to obtain (April i) from the Pope

exemption for his monastery of St. Valery-sur-Somme

from any but papal jurisdiction. About the. same time

the like exemption was granted to the renowned abbey

of Corbey, and its abbot was granted the right of wearing,

during Mass, on the principal feasts of the year, the

dalmatic and sandals.1

Otho's It does not seem that on this occasion Otho was in any

quarters— hurry to push his own schemes with the Pope. The reason

Rome, 981. doubtless was that he was in no hurry to leave Rome or

its neighbourhood. It was to be his base of operations

against the Saracens. Accordingly, he built a palace in

the so-called Campus de Cedici,2 in the territory of the

Marsi ; i.e., in the high ground round Lake Fucino. There

he spent his time all through the summer heats during

which nothing could be attempted.

Benedict In the autumn (981) we find the Pope legislating for the

favours to Church in Germany. Already, in the early part of his

the e^mpi're, reign, Benedict had issued various privileges for the benefit

98X1 of several great ecclesiastics of the empire, or of different

monasteries, "on account of love for the emperor." In

return for the good work in the way of restoring

monasteries done by Theodoric, archbishop of Trier, by

1 Ep. 18 for Hugh, 19 for Corbey.

- Chron. Casaur., 981, ap. R. /. SS., ii. pt. ii. Cf. Murat., Annul., 981.

BENEDICT VII. 32 1

the decrees of the Popes " primate of all Gaul and Germany," and for his devotion to St. Peter, Benedict granted (975) him and his successors "the cell of the Quatuor Coronati"1 The first church dedicated to these four brothers, who were martyred in Rome in the fourth century in the persecution of Diocletian, seems to have been built in that same century. In the Roman council of 595 there is the signature of the presbyter, " Fortunatus, SS. Quatuor Coronatorum." Restored under Honorius I. and Leo IV., burnt down by the terrible Robert Guiscard (1084), and rebuilt by Pascal II. (11 n), it still boasts colonnades which go back at least as far as the days of the first Honorius.

To one of the monasteries of Trier restored by Theodoric, viz. that of St. Martin, ad Littus, Benedict granted 2 that its abbots might have the right of wearing infulce (a chasuble, or headgear) like a bishop. And in confirming the precedence of the archbishop himself, he decreed3 that a cross should be carried before him, as before the archbishop of Ravenna ; that, again, like the same prelate, he should be entitled to ride to the stations on a horse covered with a white cloth ; and that his " cardinal-priests " should be allowed, when Theodoric said Mass, to wear dalmatics, and that his deacons and priests might use " schandaliis " or sandals.

Another privilege (975) 4 gives the first place in conse- crating the king to the archbishop of Mayence. Benedict's " love for the emperor " procures (976) favours for the archbishop of Cologne and the bishop of Metz.5 And now, in the autumn of 981, the Pope held synods in Rome,

1 Ep. 2. 2 Ep. 3 ; cf. 5.

3 Ep. 4. With reference to schandaliis, a note in Migne supposes, wrongly, I think, the word to be from scandalia or scanditia, steps by which one was placed in a more honourable position.

4 jaffe, 3784. 5 lb., 3788-9. VOL. IV. 21

1*2 BENEDICT VII.

in which, to the great indignation of our historian Thietmar, he abolished the See of Merseburg,1 one of those founded under Otho I., divided it between Halberstadt, Zeiz, and Meissen, and sanctioned the transfer of the bishop of Merseburg to the archbishopric of Magdeburg.2 According to Thietmar, who himself became bishop of Merseburg in 1009, and who cannot be supposed to have been well disposed to one who had brought about the suppression of the see which he afterwards held, the temporary abolition of the see was affected in this wise. On the death of Adalbert or Ethelbert (June 981), arch- bishop of Magdeburg, the clergy and people elected as his successor Ohtric, who was then in Italy with the emperor, and who, so Thietmar tells, according to the prophecy of his predecessor, was destined never to succeed him. A deputation was sent to make the election known to Otho; and, to forward the end his electors had in view, they implored the help of Giselar, the bishop of Merseburg, who had no little influence with the emperor. But Giselar him- self had designs on Magdeburg. He approached Otho and asked for a reward for his long services ; he bribed the nobles, "and especially the Roman judges, who are always to be bought ('quibus cuncta sunt semper venalia')" ; and he obtained from the Pope himself a promise that he would agree to the translation if it were sanctioned by the fathers of the synod. Benedict accordingly summoned a council {concilium generale), and asked the assembled fathers if it was lawful to transfer Giselar to the See of Magdeburg, as that prelate had declared that the bishop of Halberstadt had deprived him of his own see. Receiving a reply in the affirmative, Benedict sanctioned the translation of the

1 With an inaccuracy not unfrequent in his Hist. d'Allemagne, Zeller (ii., p. 400) speaks of Benedict's pronouncing " la dissolution de rarchevgche" de Magdebourg."

2 lb. 3808.

BENEDICT VII. 323

ambitious Giselar, who treated his former see as " though it were a Slav family which is sold and dispersed." But that Thietmar is here relying on mere gossip there would seem to be little doubt ; and that doubt is not lessened by a story with which he concludes this narrative, though he does declare that, if his betters were not ashamed to do such deeds, he is filled with shame at having to record them. " For the darkening of the truth," he says, Giselar had to give Theodoric of Metz, a great favourite of the emperor, " a thousand talents of gold and silver " ! And he adds that on a certain occasion at matins, when by the command of the emperor the said Theodoric "jocularly" asked a blessing, a certain man replied : " May God be able to satisfy you in the future, whom here all of us cannot satiate with gold." *

In the December of the following year (982), again at the request of Otho, we find the Pope taking under his protection the monastery of Lorsch, which has given its name (Laureshamenses) to annals we have had occasion to quote in a previous volume.

But Otho had come south not only for ecclesiastical but Campaign for political purposes. He had his father's wish to be Italy, 982. master in the southern parts of the Italian peninsula, as well as in the northern and central.2 Besides, it was im- portant, in the interests of Christendom, that some expedi- tion should be undertaken against the increasing power of the Saracen. Though the infidel power had received a great check by being driven from Fraxineto by William

1 Chron., iii. 9 {cf. 8) : " Saciet te, inquit, Deus in futuro, quern hie omnes non possumus auro." According to the reliable Adam of Bremen (ii. 21, al. 14), Giselar was a good and holy man, and the apostle of the Winuli, a Slav people.

2 "Otto .... non contentus finibus patris sui . . . . eggresus est occiipare .... omnes ulteriores partes Italiae usque ad mare Siculum et portum Traspitem." Ann. Sangall. maj., an. 982, ap. M. G. SS.f i.

324 BENEDICT VII.

of Provence (972), advance of authority on the part of the Fatimite Caliphs had brought a fresh Saracen expedition into south Italy, which attacked Greeks and Italians im- partially (976). Otho was prepared to assail Saracens and Greeks with the same impartiality. He allied himself with the Italian princes of the South, and at first all went well with him ; Greek towns fell into his hands, and Saracen forces were defeated in the field. But, falling into an ambush (July 982), his army was almost cut to pieces by the infidels, and it was with the utmost difficulty he escaped falling into their hands himself. " Stricken with the sword, there fell the empurpled flower of our country, the honour of fair Germany," laments a contemporary German patriot.1 This terrible disaster on the Basiento made such an impression on the imagination of men, that even in the middle of the following century it was still fresh in their minds.2 It everywhere gave courage to the enemies of the Empire, and it is credited with being the cause of a far-reaching revolt of the Wends which broke out at this time.

imperial But, because he had lost a battle, Otho was not beaten.

Rorae,S983. He at once began to prepare to take vengeance on the Saracens. Meanwhile other matters did not escape his attention. He sent his missi'3 to assist at a council held in Rome in April (983) to decide a dispute between the monks of Subiaco and those of La Cava, which was under

1 Bruno, in vit. S. Adalbert., c. 10.

2 "CalabriiE bellum adhuc per orbem terne clade et infamia notissi- mum." Wolfer, in vit. S, Godehard. (ti038), c. 7.

8 Ep. 25. " Is enim ambobus (sic I two bishops) per consensu pontifici, ac jussione imperatoria, cura audiendi veritatem eo missi sunt." An extant inscription informs us that Benedict dedicated a new church in honour of St. Scholastica at Subiaco (981). Jaffe, sub 3800. A friend of mine, who examined this tablet, suggests that the two quaint animals with which it is adorned are possibly the Pope's arms.

BENEDICT VII. 325

the protection of the emperor. The deed embodying the decision of the assembly in favour of Subiaco is interesting not only on account of the signatures of the judges in the case, but because it tells us, in language unusually bar- barous for papal documents, in what part {intro Ospitale) of the buildings attached to the basilica of St. Peter's the Pope was then wont to sleep, and lets us know that law- proceedings were not particularly brisk even in the tenth century. The monks of Subiaco had been pleading their cause in the Lateran palace for three years.

And when the emperor himself again visited Rome, both from motives of piety and to consult with the Pope on matters of religion, he evidently thought that one of the best ways of advancing the cause of faith and civilisation was to favour monasteries For we find, at this time, privileges granted to such institutions at Nienburg and Arneburg by Benedict at the request " of our beloved and spiritual son. and most worthy advocate of the holy Apostolic See."1

In June Otho met the nobles of Germany and Italy at The diet at

1. . 1 • • • 1 • Verona,

a diet in Verona, where, to strengthen his position, his son 983. by Theophano was elected to succeed to the throne, though he was not as yet four years old. When the arrangements to continue the war had been completed, Otho returned to Rome, where also the death of the Pope (July-October) called for his presence.

But, not long after he had nominated the new Pope Death of (John XIV.), Otho II., "whose little body held a great soul," and who was "in all things a most Christian emperor," 2 died of dysentery (December 7, 983).

Though our knowledge of the intercourse between Benedict

and various nation-

1 Jaffe, 3818 f. alities.

2 Vit. S.Adalbert. Pragensis, c. 8 (ap. P. L., t. 137), written by a monk of S. Alexius, under Otho III.

326 BENEDICT VII.

Benedict and the different Christian countries is of the slightest, what we do know is worth recording, if only to show that the various countries of the Catholic world were, despite the difficulties of the times, in communication with their head. The fact of his consecrating as their arch- bishop the priest James, "the elect" of the clergy and people of Carthage, proves Pope Benedict in touch with Africa.1 Most interesting and affecting is the extract on this subject from the letter to the Pope of the " clergy and people of Carthage " which the Abbot Leo has preserved for us in his fine letter to the kings of France, Hugh Capet and his son Robert. " We beg your Holiness," it runs, " to bring succour to the wretched and desolate province of Africa, which is so brought to naught that, where there was a metropolitan, there is now scarcely a priest. And as our predecessors used to have recourse to yours, so we, though miserable and lowly, turn to you. And hence to you do we send the priest James, that by consecrating him you may afford us some consolation." This, as we have said, Benedict did in Abbot Leo's monastery of St. Alexius, after he had made trial of the candidate's orthodoxy.

Giving the tonsure (975), as we may presume he did,2 to Dunwallon, king of southern Strathclyde (Flint and Denbighshire), would quicken his interest in the Church in Wales ; and the arrival in Rome of Sergius, archbishop of Damascus, expelled from his see by the Saracens (977), could not fail to direct his attention to the East. To Sergius the Pope gave the ancient church of St. Alexius, which is still the highest point on the Aventine. In connection with the church he had thus received, the

1 Jaffe,38i3-

2 For the Brut, ap. Haddan and Stubbs, i. 286, says he " went to Rome and took the tonsure."

BENEDICT VII. 327

archbishop founded a monastery, placed it under the Benedictine rule, and became its first abbot. From the subsequent residence within its walls of St. Adalbert of Prague, it became quite a centre of work for the conversion of Slav countries, and received many favours at the hands ofOthoIII.1 Ragusa became another similar centre, and to its archbishop Benedict sent the pallium in 1022 (September 27)?

The exact length of the reign of Benedict cannot be Death of stated with certainty. The Liber Pontificalis and some 983. catalogues3 assign him a reign of nine years. If that were, indeed, the length of his pontificate, he must have died October 983. But his epitaph expressly states that he died July 10, 983. This epitaph, however, which is still to be seen in the Sessorian basilica, now known as S. Croce in Gerusalemme, is only a cento of the epitaphs of Stephen (VI.) VII., Benedict IV., Sergius III., and Leo IV. Hence some authors, who do not believe that a genuine epitaph would ever have been composed in such a weak way, do not attach any importance to the matter contained in the S. Croce inscription. Still, if the want of scholar- ship of the time be taken into consideration, it does not, perhaps, seem quite incredible that an epitaph should have been drawn up in such a patchwork style by some scribe possibly more idle than incompetent. The inscription is here given as it appears in Duchesne4: —

" Hoc Benedicti Papas quiescunt membra sepulchro, Septimus existens ordine quippe Patrum.

1 Gregorovius, Rome, iii. 388, etc.

2 Jaffe, 4042. Cf. Villari, The Republic of Ragusa, p. 53.

3 Others, as that of Sigeric, only give seven years and a half.

4 L. P., ii. 258. In Watterich, i. 86, there are some conjectural emendations. Lanciani, Pagan and Christian Rome, p. 234, has con- fused this inscription with one to that Crescentius who died in the monastery of S. Alessio, and which is given in the L. P., ii. 256.

323 BENEDICT VII.

Hie primus repulit Franconis spurca superbi,

Culmina qui invasit Sedis Apostolicae.

Qui Dominumquae suum captum in castro habebat.

Carceris interea vinclis constrictus in imo

Strangulatus ubi exuerat hominem.

Cumque Pater multum certaret dogmate Sanctorum

Expulit a sede iniquus, namque invasor.1

Hie quoque predones sanctorum falce subegit

Romans ecclesiae judiciisque patrum.

Gaudet amans pastor agmina cuncta simul. Hiccae monasterium statuit monachosque locavit Qui laudes Domino nocte diequae canunt. Confovens viduas, negnon et inopesque pupillos Ut natos proprios assidue refovens.

Inspector tumuli compuncto dicito corde Cum Christo regnes, O Benedicte, deo.

D. X. M. Jul. in Apia, (apostolica) sede residens viiii. ann. obiit ad Christum, Indie, xii. '

The epitaph, after telling that the remains of Benedict VII. lie within, adds that he expelled the intruder Franco who had cast his lord (Benedict VI.) into prison, where he was strangled. He subdued the enemies of the Church, and founded a monastery at S. Croce. He comforted the widow, and nourished poor orphan children as though they were his own. Coins. To Benedict VII. Promis2 attributes those silver coins

which, besides the name of Benedict, have the legend "Otto Imperator Romanorum." In addition to a doubtful Benedict coin, which he also allots to this Pope, he assigns to the last month of the life of Benedict VII. another coin on which appear only "Ben PP" and ' Scs Petrus."

1 Watterich : " Expulit a sede namque invasor cum."

2 P. 97-

BENEDICT VII. 329

With the exception of the money struck by St. Leo IX. and Paschal II., there is no proof that the Roman mint turned out any more coins for a hundred and fifty years. At the end of that long period coins were again minted in Rome ; but then, for a considerable time, not by the Popes but by the Senate of the Roman people.

JOHN XIV.

A.D. 983-984.

Source. — Only one letter of John XIV. is given by Migne, P. L.t t 137.

Election of UNEASY, we are told, lies the head that wears a crown.

Pavia.0 The saying is certainly true of the head that wore the papal tiara in the tenth century. Peter Canepanova or Canevanova, bishop of Pavia (his birthplace), and, since 966, chancellor of the empire, closed a pontificate of less than a year's duration by a violent death. The trusted servant of Otho II., he was sent to Rome as his missus for the settlement of the dispute, already mentioned, between the monasteries of La Cava and Subiaco. With that of his brother imperial representative, his signature1 comes next to that of the Pope in the deed which set forth the rights of Subiaco. In his epitaph his administration of his northern Italian see is praised as well as his rule of that of Rome ; therein is also set forth how dear he was to Otho, and how sweet and tender to all who came in contact with him, whether rich or poor. Such was the man whom

1 ** Petrus Papiensis Ecclesias episcopus huic judicati paginam (sic) perpetualiter, sicuti supra legitur, interfui." Ep. 25 of Bened. VII.

33o

JOHN XIV. 331

the will x of Otho placed on the chair of Peter towards the close (November or December) of the year 983.

That Peter of Pavia, who took the name of John XIV., Not two should in later ages have been divided into two Popes, is i^ayear. ° quite typical of the obscurity which has ever hung over the papal history of the tenth century. The fact that the notice of this pontiff in the Book of the Popes gives two separate dates in connection with his life, has been enough for the compilers of papal catalogues to make one Pope John for the eight months assigned to the reign of John XIV., and another Pope John for the four months during which John XIV. is said to have languished in prison. When- ever this blunder first saw the light, it did not affect the proper numbering of the Popes of the name of John till the thirteenth century, when the John who ought to have been called (1276) John XX. took the title of John XXI. No doubt the error must have crept into catalogues drawn up after the death of John XIX. in 1033.2

The Emperor Otho II. did not long survive his nomina- Death of tion of John XIV. His most Christian death, which took 9s3. place in the imperial palace of St. Peter, close by the Vatican, is detailed for us at some little length by Thiet- mar.3 Feeling his end to be drawing nigh, he divided " all his money " into four parts ; the first for the churches, the second for the poor, the third for his beloved sister Matilda, abbess of Quedlinburg, and the fourth for his sorrowing ministers and soldiers. Then, when he had made in Latin a public confession of his sins before the Pope and his bishops and priests, and had " received from them the

1 " D. Apostolicum digno cum honore Romanse prasfecit Ecclesiae." Ann. Saxo, an. 983.

2 Cf Duch., L. P., II., p. xviii.

3 Chron., iii. 15. Cf. the Life of St. Godehard (ti038) by his disciple Wolfer. " Romae cum summo totius Christianismi mcerore, satis tamen honorifice sepulto." C. 7, ap. P. Z., t. 141, p. 1168.

332 JOHN XIV.

desired absolution," he was removed from this light on December 7. He was buried in the atrium of St. Peter's, near the oratory of Our Lady, where "her beautiful image is to be seen blessing those who come in" ; and, according to Bonizo of Sutri, he was thrice blessed in being the only one who, out of so many emperors and kings, merited to be buried with Popes and the Prince of the Apostles. In the crypt of the basilica of St. Peter (grotte vecchie — east) may still be seen the tomb of Otho II. " It is about twelve feet long and four feet high, and is said to contain an ancient sarcophagus, for which the present font of St. Peter's is wrongly supposed to have formed the cover."1 It bears the simple inscription " + Otto Secundus Imperator Augustus + ." The mosaics with which his wife adorned the tomb have been dispersed ; but one fragment at least, show- ing our Lord between SS. Peter and Paul, is still in the crypt. The pal- On the day before the death of Otho II., the Pope

Hum for ,

Aio. issued the one document of his reign which we possess.

From the superior style in which it is written, it is con- jectured that it was dictated by the ex-chancellor himself; and the high idea John had of his elevated position may be safely inferred from it. It was addressed to Alo, the arch- bishop of Beneventum and Sipontum, which latter place, we take it, must have been of some size even in the last quarter of the tenth century. "If in guarding their flocks shepherds are ready by day and by night to endure heat and cold, and ever keep watch and ward over the fold lest any of their flock stray away or be seized by wild animals, with what care and anxiety ought we not to watch, we who are the shepherds of men, for fear that, through our negligence, we may be arraigned before the Supreme Shepherd ; and the higher we have been in honour here, the

1 D. Sladen, Old St Peters, p. 68, London, 1907. Cf. Dufresne, Les cryptcs vaticanes, p. 16.

JOHN xiv. 333

lower we may be thrust down hereafter." He sends the archbishop the pallium, and enumerates the feast-days on which he may wear it, names the cities for which he may consecrate bishops, and grants to him and his successors " the Church of St. Michael on Mount Gargano — a famous sanctuary still standing on Mount Santangelo, one of the lofty spurs of the Gargano — and the Church of Sipontum itself (which is also still in existence), with all their appur- tenances, with all the farm servants {prcediis familiis) of both sexes, and with the churches and estates which are known to belong to the aforesaid two churches." The archbishop is then exhorted to let his life be in accordance with his dignity. " Let then your life be the rule of your subjects ; for their progress depends on your example, so that after your day you may be able to say with safety — My heart was neither puffed up by prosperity, nor de- jected by adversity. May the good find you kind, and the bad acknowledge you as discreet." He would have Alo judge just judgment; but at the same time strike like a Father. He will do all things well if charity be his guide; if he follow her, he cannot stray from the right path.1

Through the good offices of a mutual friend, the Lady John and

Gerbert.

Imiza, the confidante of the Empress Theophano, the Pope was on friendly terms with the celebrated Gerbert, then abbot of Bobbio on the Trebbia. When John XIV. was Peter of Pavia, though he and Gerbert spoke well of each other to their common patron Otho II., the abbot had occasion to write to him in rather a sharp style. Whether or not the chancellor had been driven to the action in order to find money for Otho's expedition against the Saracens, Gerbert wrote to him about the middle of 983 to complain that he gave the goods of Bobbio to soldiers as though the abbey were his own ; and as " good 1 Ep. ap. P. L., t. 137, p. 357 f.

334 JOHN XIV.

faith was nowhere to be found," and, what was neither heard nor seen was imagined, Gerbert concluded by saying that he would only communicate his wishes to the bishop by letter, and would only receive those of the bishop in the same way.1 But, by the time Peter had become Pope, the two evidently spoke not only well of each other, but to each other. One of Gerbert's letters to John is worth quoting as, though short, like most of them, it sheds not a little light on the state of the times. It is addressed : "To the most blessed Pope John, Gerbert, in name only abbot

of the monastery of Bobbio Whither can I turn, O

father of our country ? If I appeal to the Apostolic See, I am derided. I can neither come to you on account of my enemies, nor am I free to leave Italy. It is equally difficult to remain where I am, seeing that neither within nor without the monastery is anything left me but my pastoral staff and the apostolic benediction. The Lady Imiza is dear to us, because she is devoted to you. Through her, by word of mouth or by letters, you will let me know your will; and through her I will let you know what I think will interest you in the general condition of public affairs." 2 John would have Gerbert come to Rome about his diffi- culties ; but the abbot was prudent. He begged 8 the Pope to let him know what he was to hope for if he under- took the risk of a journey to Rome ; and said he rather thought that it might be that, under existing conditions, it would be safer for him to attach himself to the party where physical force predominated. Whether Gerbert ever re- ceived any reply to this letter, or whether indeed Pope John was not a prisoner in the castle of St. Angelo before it reached Rome, is not known for certain. We may, how- ever, infer, from a comparison of two of Gerbert's letters

1 Epp. Gerberti, 5 ; ed. Havet.

2 lb., ep. 14, December 983. 3 Ep. 23, beginning of 984.

john xiv. 335

(25 and 40), that he received an encouraging answer from the Pope, and that it was arranged that the abbot should come to Rome at the end of the year. At any rate the news of the Pope's imprisonment and death gave Gerbert a shock, and took away what hopes he had of help from that quarter. " All Italy seems to me to be like Rome; and at the ways of the Romans the whole world shudders. In what state is Rome now?" he asked at the close of 984. " Who are the Popes and the temporal rulers ? What was the end x of my dear friend (the Pope) ? " This, as far as it can be ascertained, must now be told.

Unfortunately, the high character of John XIV. could Death of not save him from the ill-will of a section of the Romans ; 984." i.e., the section which regarded the exile, Boniface VII., as the true Pope, and which is generally supposed to be the 4 national party " — the party which resented the action of the German emperors in taking away from the Romans their right of electing the Popes, and in placing their own nominees on the chair of Peter. The death of Otho II. had left the care of the empire in the hands of a child (Otho III.) and a woman (Theophano). And there were not wanting those who thought that the time had come when they could take what they wanted at the expense of the empire. Slavs and Danes broke through its frontiers, Henry the Quarrelsome of Bavaria put forth an armed claim to the regency, and the Romans began to intrigue with Boniface for the overthrow of the Pope appointed by Otho II. Final success attended the last-named endeavour only. Assisted in all likelihood by the court of Constanti- nople, which, from the attacks made on their Italian

1 At least this is a likely meaning of the expression : " Quos exitus habuit ille meus, specialiter inquam, meus." Ep. 40, to Stephen, a deacon of the Roman Church. According to Havet, this letter was written at the end of November or the beginning of December.

33^ JOHN XIV.

possessions by Otho I. and his son, must have been glad of an opportunity of lessening the ascendancy of the Othos, Boniface returned to Rome. His faction succeeded in securing the person of the Pope, whom they shut up in the castle of St. Angelo (April 984). There he died on August 20, as his epitaph informs us. Men stood aghast at these deeds of violence. u All Italy seems to be Rome," they cried ; 1 " and at the doings of the Romans the world shudders " !

As to the details in connection with these events, we are very much in the dark ; and, in estimating the truth of such as have come down to us, we are again confronted with the difficulty that those authorities which are not anonymous are at once non-local and attached to the imperial party. According to the entry in the catalogue, which does duty as the Liber Pontificate, after Boniface had seized John, he formally deposed him, and then shut him up in the castle. There he lay sick and half starved for four months ; and, at the end of that period died, " it is said by violence." 2 From other anonymous sources we gather that Boniface was enabled to accomplish his designs by the free use of money,3 whether acquired from the Church treasure, which late authorities say he carried to Constantinople, or from the imperial treasury of the East, and that John's death was directly ordered by him. The

1 Gerberti, ep. 40, c. November 984.

2 "Ibique infirmitatem et famis inopiam per mi menses acriter sustinuit ac mortuus est, et, ut fertur occisus." L. P. Cf. Hist. Farfensis, ap. M. G. SS., xi. 573.

:i Vatican, 1 340, " B, dans pecuniam, interfecit praedictum Petrum." Cf Chron. Suevicum (M. G. SS., xiii., p. 69), " Post 8 menses a B, reverso comprehensus et necatus est" ; Catal. Eccard. (ap. Watterich, i. 687) and Zwetlensis, " B . . . . per quatuor menses inedia attritum jussit occidi." The catalogue of Eccard was drawn up under Leo IX. ; the other at the close of the twelfth century only, as was also the Vatican, 1340.

JOHN xiv. 337

account thus given to us by more or less contemporary but nameless scribes is confirmed by the words of Gerbert,1 the friend of the Othos, and by those of the German monk Hermann of Reichenau.2 Hence, though the personal guilt of Boniface VII. in the matter of the death of John XIV. may have appeared more than doubtful to his modern namesake, with such evidence as is now available, it would seem that the probabilities are that the son of Ferrutius was responsible for the murder of Benedict VI. and John XIV. Still, it must be borne in mind that the best local source, the continuation of the Liber Pontiftcalis, only gives the violent end of John as a report, ut fertur, and that probably even the notice in the Liber Pontificalis was not written down till some years after the event it chronicles.

Because on a coin bearing the names of a Pope John, and Coin (?). of " Otto Imperator," the title Ap. (Apostolus) is appended to " Scs Petrus," which follows the name of the Pope, it is thought by some that that coin was struck by John XIV. The reason they allege is the not very convincing state- ment that the Ap. was not placed after the name of St. Peter till the time of Benedict VII. It is to be feared, however, that, as to many other papal questions of the tenth century, no answer can be given to the query as to who was the coiner of the said denarius. However, from the fact that John XIV. and Otho II. were only Pope and emperor together for a few days, it is much

1 Cone. Rem., c. 28, B . . . . insignem virum apostolicum Petrum .... data sacramentorum fide, ab arce Urbis dejecit, deponit, squalore carceris affectum perimit." Cf. ep. 40.

2 " B . . . . fame, et, ut perhibent, veneno enecuit ejusque sedem CXL papa, invasit." Chron., an. 984. The Ann. Einsidlenses, an. 983 (4), a more or less contemporary authority (ap. M. G. SS., iii.), simply say that after Peter of Pavia "Bonifacius sedem sanctam injuste usurpavit."

VOL. IV. 22

epitaph.

338 JOHN XIV.

more likely that the coin in question was struck by John XIII.1 John's John XIV. was buried in the atrium of St. Peter's, next

to John IX. His epitaph, the substance of which has been already quoted, runs thus : —

" Praesulis eximii requiescunt membra Joannis Qui Petrus antea extiterat. Quippe Sedem Papie blando moderamine rexit. Imperator(i) Ottoni dulcis fuit atque praeclarus, Commissum populum Rom(anum) in omnibus instruens, Dulcis in eloquio, cunctis praeclarus amicis, Subjectis placidus, pauperibus pius. Defunctus est Joannes pp. Romanus m. Aug. d. xx." ■

1 Besides, Promis found on similar coins not A P but R O, and he has no doubt that R O is the correct lettering. P. 94.

8 Ap. Duch., L. P., ii. 259. The substance of the epitaph was given at the beginning of this biography. From the absence of any allusion to a violent death, Duchesne draws the conclusion that the epitaph was composed during the lifetime of Boniface VII. ; but perhaps the conclusion to be drawn should be that he did not die by violence at all.

BONIFACE VII

(ANTIPOPE ?)

A.D. 984-985.

We have now to deal with Boniface VII. and his claim to Was Boni- face Pope? a place in the list of Popes. Needless to say, he regarded

himself as a legitimate successor of St. Peter; and

there are extant a few documents bearing date "the

eleventh year of Boniface VII., the thirteenth indiction

985," 1 etc. Moreover, he was apparently regarded as a true

Pope by the Romans of the tenth century, as seems clear

from his finding a place in the Book of the Popes and in

the Sigeric catalogue. Archbishop Sigeric visited Rome

only a few years after the death of Boniface, probably in

July 990, and the list of the Popes which he has left us

assigns sixty days to him after Benedict VI. ; and, after

John XIV., it adds that "Boniface returned to Rome and

sat nine months and three days."

Speaking generally, while most moderns class him as

an antipope, most of the ancients seem to have recognised

him as a true Pope.2 He is assigned a place among the

1 Ferrucci, p. 59 f. To those there may be added another, ap. Gregorovius, Rome, iii. 398 n.

2 He is not mentioned, indeed, in the list of the tenth-century Popes given in the Ann. Leodienses (ap. M. G. SS., iv., p. 15), drawn up in the year 1000 ; but the list is not otherwise accurate, and so has no great weight.

339

340 BONIFACE VII.

Popes whose mosaics adorn the walls of St. Paul's, without- the-walls\ and the famous successor of St. Celestine V. called himself Boniface VIII. Hence it is possible that, at least after the death of John XIV, Boniface became Pope by the general, if tacit, consent of clergy and people. But in the dearth of documents which un- happily distinguishes this period, nothing can be asserted positively on the subject. The doings Even if John XIV. did not die a natural death in the face. castle of St. Angelo, but was therein done to death by the

fury of faction, and if Boniface VII. was personally impli- cated in his death, it is scarcely just to believe any story that is told to the detriment of the son of Ferrucius. Yet, on the flimsiest authority, we find Gregorovius writing: " The casual mention of the fact that he had caused Cardinal John's eyes to be torn out, gives us reason to suppose that other atrocities were probably committed in the desire for revenge fostered by his long exile."1 It should have been stated that the earliest authority for this story about Cardinal John is that very Martinus Polonus who died in the last quarter of the thirteenth century (1278), and whose " monkish falsehoods and fictions " are denounced by Gregorovius himself.2

Of what Boniface did whilst in actual possession of the chair of Peter we know very little. When we have said that he leased the stronghold of Petra Pertusa, which once used to guard the tunnel cut by Vespasian through the pass of Furlo,on the Flaminian Way, and that he permitted the consecration of a church in honour of St. Benedict,3 it is not possible to find much more to say of the acts which he accomplished whilst he held the See of Rome. Some time during his second occupation of the chair of Peter, he caused

1 Rome, iv. 397. 2 lb., vii. 633.

3 Jaffe, Peg., or Ferrucci, p. Co.

BONIFACE VII. 341

money to be struck bearing, as usual, his own name (S C S PEV BONIF PAPAE) and that of the emperor1 (OTTO IMPE ROM.). Though we know so little of Boniface and his times, what

• party did

there are not wanting conjectures, more or less probable, Boniface which may serve to enlighten his reign. But as authors repr& who approach the subject from different standpoints are not agreed as to the view to be taken of it, these conjectures cannot be regarded as altogether satisfactory. Ferrucci, who has devoted a work to the special study of Boniface, makes him out to be the representative of the popular party in Rome, which had the support of the clergy, and which was opposed to that of the aristocracy. On the other hand, some more recent authors regard him as the representative of the " national Roman " party, and hold that he was restored by the hand of the same nobleman, Crescentius, who had raised him in the first instance, who died as a monk in the monastery of St. Alexius (July 7, 984), and whose inscription2 in its church tells us of the last resting-place of the " illustrious Crescentius, Rome's distinguished citizen and great Dux." Among the supporters of this view is the Abbe Duchesne, who adds : " The tradition continued ; 3 for thirty years power passed in Rome from Otho to Crescentius, from Crescentius to Otho. It was not always the same Otho nor the same Crescentius, but it was always the same conflict between the national chief and the foreign prince." But, as has been frequently insisted upon in these pages, it may well be maintained that the moving principle in Rome during all this period was not any feeling of nationalism, but simply the personal ambition of different members of the aristocracy. As long as an Alberic or a Crescentius could

1 Promis, Monete.

2 Ap. Baron., ad an. 996, xi. ; or L. P., ii. 256.

3 Letat fiont., p. 195.

342 BONIFACE VII.

rule according to his own will in the city of Rome, he was ready to acknowledge the nominal supremacy of any distant ruler, whether German emperor or Byzantine basileus. But as soon as either Pope at home or prince abroad showed that he was going to be master in Rome, then the ruling aristocrat showed himself in his true colours. Death of This was experienced by Boniface. He incurred the vn. mortal hatred of his own party because he showed he was

going to be the ruler in Rome. He died suddenly ; one of our authorities (Vatic. 1340) says by poison. However that may be, his own party (sui) showed their hatred of him by maltreating his dead body. They flayed it, pierced it with their lances, dragged it naked by the feet to the equestrian statue of Marcus Aurelius in the Campus before the Lateran palace, and there left it. And there it remained all night. In the morning, however, some of the clergy, touched at the sight of the body of one who had, at least, borne the name of Pope, in such a pitiable condition, buried it.1 This took place in the month of July 985.

1 L. P. " In tanto eum hodio habuerunt sui ut post mortem ejus cederent eum, et lanceis vulnerarent atque per pedes traherent," etc. To the same effect, in almost the same words, writes Herman. Aug., C/iron., 985. The Annals of Einsiedlcn (ap. M. G. SS.t iii. 143) indicate that John XIV. died a natural death, but the usurper Boniface a violent one. " Post quern Bonifacius sedem sanctam injuste usurpavit, eodemque anno vitam interemptus finivit."

JOHN XV.

A.D. 985-996. Sources. — Seventeen documents in Migne, P. Z., t. 137.

DURING the pontificate of John XV. there occurred an important event of a certain importance in the annals of both Church time of i and State, though its interest arises not from anything striking in its actual occurrence, nor from any great results that followed therefrom, but from its intimate connection with events of the utmost importance in the past. The event alluded to was the final extinction of the royal Carolin- gian line, whether that be reckoned from the death of its last sovereign Louis V. (987), or from the imprisonment of its last representatives (991) by Hugh Capet. True to the papal tradition of devotion to the descendants of Charlemagne, John XV. will be found loyal to their cause, even though it brought him into collision with such a powerful adversary as Gerbert, afterwards the famous Pope Sylvester II. Apart from " the last stand" of the Carolin- gians into which he was drawn, and of which, in the works of Gerbert, we have a certain fulness of detail, time has not preserved much more of any interest in the compara- tively long reign of John XV.

343

344 JOHN xv.

His dec- John, the cardinal-priest of St. Vitalis l (afterwards the titular church of another more famous John, our own illus- trious martyr-cardinal, John Fisher, bishop of Rochester), was a Roman, the son of a priest of the name of Leo, and belonging to the region " Galline Albe." From St. Gregory the Great (ep. iii. 17) we learn that that place belonged to the fourth ecclesiastical quarter, and from the regionnaries of the fourth century that the locality known as Gallinas Albas was included in the sixth civil region (Alta Semita), which embraced the Quirinal Hill, the Baths of Diocletian, etc. John became Pope in August 985. and though there is really no authentic data to enable one to form any certain conclusions as to the circumstances of his election, there are as usual modern authors quite prepared to supply the deficiency. Accordingly, John figures as at once the friend and foe of the family of Crescentius.2 Likely enough his election may have been due to the clergy, for there is no certainty that the younger Crescentius had seized the civil power in the city at the very beginning of John's reign ; i.e., his election may have been brought about in a legitimate manner. But whether he was the nominee of Crescentius or the hope of the clergy, he apparently disappointed both, and

1 Sigeric Catal.

2 " II est clair que Jean XV. . . . dut sa promotion a la faveur de Crescentius." Duchesne, Ldtal pontif., p. 190. Gregorovius comes to an opposite conclusion, Rome, iii. 399 ; John " must have been hostile to the house of Crescentius .... and must, therefore, have been raised to the throne by the German in opposition to the national faction." A recently published (1903) new source would lend colour to a fresh con- jecture. It is a thirteenth-century catalogue, quoting apparently from some much earlier document. As it makes John to have been cardinal- priest of St. Susanna, it would not, indeed, appear to be very reliable ; though I note that, in Cristofori's list of the possessors of that title, a certain John had it in 964. However, the catalogue states : " Patricius Urbis facit papam Joannem tituli S. Susanne .... qui multas perse- quciones substinuit a Crescentio ejusdem patricii germano." Cron. Pont. et. imp. S. Barthol. in insula Romani, ap. M. G. SS., xxxi., p. 214.

JOHN xv. 345

had to rely on the support of the future emperor, the German king, Otho III.

If, even on such a simple question of fact as the author- Character, ship of a book, it is safe to follow such a late authority as Martinus Polonus,1 who is followed by the fourteenth- century papal biographers, John XV. was learned even in military science, and was the author of many books. But if he was learned, he is said to have been stained with nepotism, and to have been avaricious ; and, on that account' to have been odious to the clergy. He disliked the clergy, says the Book of the Popes,2 and was in turn justly dis- liked by them, as he handed over to his relatives all he could lay his hands upon. From the fact that we read (An. 990) of a nephew of John occupying the position of Dux of Aricia, nothing can fairly be concluded, except per- haps that the Pope was of a good family. But it is thought by some that the imputation on his character made by the Book of the Popes is supported by the authority of no less a personage than St. Abbo, the learned abbot of Fleury, who visited Rome both under John XV. and his successor Gregory V. His disciple, the monk Aimoin, the author of the Historia Francorum, wrote the Life2, of St. Abbo, some time after the saint's death. Speaking of his journey to Rome to get the privileges of his monastery confirmed, his biographer says that the holy abbot "did not find the pontiff of the Apostolic See, by name John, such as he could have wished, or such as indeed the pontiff ought to have been ; for he found him eager for filthy lucre and

1 In vit.Joan., ap. M. G. SS., xxii. As a substantial guarantee of these statements, we have the assertion of Hugh Capet in his letter to John XV. : " Quippe cum sciamus vos omne tempus in humanis ac divinis studiis exegisse." Ap. Acta cone. Rem., ed. Olleris, p. 202.

2 The Hist. Farfenses only repeats the same words.

3 Ap. Migne, t. 139. The letters of St. Abbo are in the same volume. The Life of St. Abbo, by the abbe Pardiac, is both most discursive and written in a highly enthusiastic strain, Hist, de S. Abbon, Paris, 1872.

346 JOHN XV.

venal in all his acts." " And," adds the biographer, " after execrating the Pope, the abbot offered up his prayers at the different shrines, bought various silken ecclesiastical ornaments of the very best kind, and then returned home." l But that such were not the opinions of Abbo regarding John XV. is certain from an extant letter of his to a legate sent by the Pope to Hugh Capet, viz. the learned 2 abbot Leo of the Roman monastery of S. Boniface. In the course of that epistle, the saint told his friend that on the occasion of his last visit to Rome, before the election " of the scion of the imperial house" (Gregory V.), he found the Roman Church " bereaved of a worthy pastor " (" digno viduatam pastore "). Aimoin must simply on his own account, therefore, have ascribed to John's avarice his refusal to comply with the request of his master Abbo ; or, more likely, he must have referred to the Pope the covetousness which really belonged to Crescentius. For, just as Alberic, "Prince of the Romans," had used the influence which his power over the Popes gave him to gratify his greed of gold,3 so did Crescentius Numentanus, " Patrician of the Romans." This we know from the testimony of Gerbert, or from that of the fathers of the council of Rheims as reported by Gerbert. At first sight, indeed, it would seem as if he confirmed the Book of the

1 Vit., c. ii. "Quern exsecratus .... ad sua rediit, emptis optima? specie! aliquantis holosericis palliis ornatui ecclesiastico congruis." The arts then in Rome were not all dead at any rate.

2 Ep. 15 to Leo, distinguished "facundia: pnerogativa, cum vita? merito et sapiential doctrina."

3 Liutprand, Leg., c. 62. Avarice was in the blood of the house of Theophylact. The John Crescentius who in the days of John XVIII. and Sergius IV. was the "destroyer of the Apostolic See," like the sons of Heli plundered the very offerings laid on the altar. "Traxit (Crescentius) in prredam, quod multorum devota manus ad aram apostolorum pro peccatis congessit in hostiam." Thietmar, Chron.y vii. 51.

JOHN XV. 347

Popes in its charges against John XV. For he says, in connection with the case of Archbishop Arnulf of Rheims, of which something will be said in the sequel, that the envoys of the king (Hugh Capet) were favourably received by the Pope until those of the opposite side had presented him with a splendid snow-white horse and other gifts.1 But from another passage,2 where this matter is explained more at length, it is plain that it was Crescentius who got the presents. The bishops say that when their envoys reached Rome "the Apostolic See was not permitted to pronounce a free judgment, but only such a one as gold could procure from Crescentius, that limb of the devil. . . . Our envoys and those of the king were well received by the Pope ; but, as we believe, because they did not offer presents to Crescentius, they were kept away from the (papal) palace for three days and then returned home without any answer. No doubt it is due to our sins that, owing to the tyrannical oppression of the Roman Church, which is the mother and head of all the churches, all the members are weakened." Finally, as another contemporary author, the Roman

1 Cone. Rent., c. 27. The passage that follows this has, it appears to us, been misunderstood by various authors. It is to the effect that the envoys of Bruno of Langres sought, at Rome, to obtain from the Pope the condemnation of the captors of their bishop. " Ejus ministri summam solidorum decern dari censebant." This has been interpreted to mean that the papal officials exacted ten golden solidi from the envoys before they would let them have an interview with the Pope {Gerbert, par Lausser, p. 227). But the context would seem to show that the officials had advised that the solidi should be offered for the bishop's release ; for the passage goes on to say that the officials were laughed to scorn on the ground that, if he (the bishop) could have been ransomed by money, a thousand talents would have been forthcoming at once. " At length they received this answer from the Pope, that he for whom (their bishop) had been captured, would look well to him."

2 Oratio Efift. in Cone. Causeio, init., ap. M. G. 55., iii. ; or ed. Olleris, p. 252. " Non ap. sedi liberum licebit proferre judicium, sed quod auri talentum obtinere poterit apud Crescentium, diaboli mem- brum," etc.

348 JOHN XV.

monk John Canaparius, in his Life of St. Adalbert of Prague, has no hesitation in saying that on the Pope's death his soul went to heaven, and that his death itself was disastrous both to Otho and to Rome,1 there can be little doubt that the charge of avarice levelled against John XV. is unfounded, and should be laid at the door of Crescentius. For, of this vice of the Patrician, the Burgundian monk too, Raoul Glaber, or Glaber Rudolphus as he is generally called, pointedly writes2 that, quite in the style of men of his sort in Rome, his extravagance was only matched by his avarice. And so, in the words3 of yet another of John's contemporaries, viz. the abbot Constantine (f 1024), the author of the Life of Adalberon 1 1 ., bishop of Metz, who came to Rome to see the Pope, it may no doubt be said with truth that John " most worthily filled the place of Blessed Peter."

If, however, John XV. is the "John who was called the Greater" (and it seems to some that he was), he may have incurred odium on account of his elevation of his nephew Benedict, to whom he gave the county of Sabina and other honours, and whom he married to the noble lady Theodoranda, the daughter of Crescentius (" a caballo marmoreo ").4 But, as the last named is apparently

1 C. 21, ap. M. G. SS., iv. ; or Migne, t. 137.

2 Hist., i., c. 4. Crescentius "qui, ut illorum mos est, quantum onerosior pecuniae, tantum pronior serviens avaritiav

1 G. II, in vit. Adalb., ap. M. G. SS., iv. ; or P. L.> t. 139.

4 Cf. the narrative of the abbot Hugo, ap. M. G. SS., xi. ; or R. I. SS., ii., pt. ii., p. 549 f. Cf. supra, p. 285. The narrative of Hugo makes it plain that the persecutor of John XV., known as Crescentius Numcntanus, was the same as the Crescentius "of the Marble Horse." He tells us that Theodoranda, the wife of Count Benedict, was the daughter of Crescentius (" qui vocabatur a Caballo Marmoreo") ; that "Count" Crescentius was put to death by Otho and Gregory ; that, on the death of Otho, John, the son of Crescentius, " was ordained Patrician," and that he began to favour his beloved relatives John and Crescentius, the sons of Count Benedict.

JOHN xv. 349

the same person as Crescentius Numentanus, then it is perhaps more than likely that the marriage between his daughter Theodoranda and the Pope's nephew was brought about not by the Pope but by the Patrician, who would, of course, insist that a suitable appanage should be granted to his son-in-law.

When precisely the Crescentius, who is distinguished ThzPatri- by the appellation of Numentanus,1 assumed "the empty centnis, title of Patrician," and began to oppress the Pope,2 ?h| Jian( is not known. However, a document, dated January 3, press' indiction xiv. (986), purports to have been drawn up in the first year of Pope John and of the patriciate {impercmte patricid) of Crescentius.3

But, like most of the petty Roman tyrants of the tenth century, he was great in nothing but greed and ability to crush the weak, and utterly incapable of offering any resistance to the Germans even when led by a woman. To look into the state of things at Rome, the regent Theophano (whose brothers Basil II. and Constantine VIII. were ruling at Constantinople), styling herself not merely empress but emperor, approached that city towards the close of the year 989. The Patrician made not the slightest show of resistance, and the empress-mother had no difficulty

1 Bonizo of Sutri {Lib. decret., t. vi., ap. Mai, Nova Pat. Bib., Hi., p. 45) speaks of "Crescentius Nomentana, qui patricius dicebatur"; and in his Liber ad a?nicum, 1. iv., ap. Watterich, Vit. Papp., i. 729, " C. quidam, urbis Romas capitaneus, qui sibi inane nomen patriciatus vendicaverat, assumens tyrannidem," etc. The appellation of Numen- tanus was doubtless assigned by Bonizo to John Crescentius "of the Marble Horse," from estates possessed by his family, at least after his time, at Nomentum (Mentana).

2 " C. . . . priorem papam (J. XV.) injuriis scepe laceravit," — so say the contemporary annals of Hildesheim, an. 996. Cf. the letter of the abbot Leo (ap. Olleris, p. 243) to the kings of France, Hugh and Robert. John XV. " in tanta tribulatione et oppressione a Crescentio tunc positus fuit."

3 Ap. Gregorovius, Rome, iii. 400 n.

350 JOHN XV.

in securing the allegiance of Rome itself and its Duchy.1 What else occupied the attention of the empress in Rome except that she bestowed privileges on monasteries, and met St. Adalbert of Prague, is not known. She did not, unfortunately, attempt anything against the Saracens who were still engaged in successfully combating her country- men in south Italy. Death of Whatever immediate limiting effect was produced upon 996. " the power and influence of Crescentius by the coming of Theophano, his wings were not completely clipped. The death of the empress (June 991), and the youth of Otho III., emboldened him. Once again all the material power of the city was in his hands, and once again justice was put up to auction.2 The situation was unbearable. John fled from the city and betook himself to Hugo, marquis of Tuscany, apparently in 995.3 With the approval of a large party of the Romans and of the Italians generally, the Pope sent envoys to Otho to implore him to come and rid the Church and city of the corrupt tyrant.4 The youthful Otho, who in his ideals (if somewhat Utopian, at least lofty) resembled the present German emperor, listened favourably to the story of the deputation. He began at once to make his preparations for an expedition to Rome, " to put a term to the tyranny of Crescentius." 5 This was

1 "Theophanu .... Romam perrexit, . . . . et omnem regionem regi subdidit." A?in. I Hides., 989.

2 " Sileant ammodo leges .... si neminem in judiciis attingere fas est, nisi quern Crescentius tyrannus mercede conductus voluerit ab- solvere vel punire." So speak the bishops "in concilio Causeio." CEuvres de Gerbert, ed. OIL, p. 255.

3 It is not really certain whether this flight of John preceded the coming of Theophano (989), or that of her son (996).

4 "Legatiap. sedis cum unanimitate Romanorum atque Langobar- dorum regem Romam invitant." Ann. Hildesh., 995.

6 " Oddo rex ad mitigandam ssevitiam Crescentii Romam invitatur.:' Ann. Altahenses MaJ., 996.

JOHN XV. 351

quite enough for the valiant Patrician. John was implored to return ; and at his feet the senate, i.e., the nobles and their leader, besought his pardon. Nevertheless the hand of Otho was not stayed. He entered Italy in the spring of 996 ; but before he reached Rome, John XV. was no more. Worn out both by " the many good works which he had done, and by the great persecutions which he had endured in defence of the Roman Church," he died not long before Easter Sunday, 996.1

There are authors who regard this turning to the German as the subjection of Italy to a foreign servitude. To do so is to transfer to the tenth century the ideas of a much later age. Ideas of nationality, such as they exist nowadays in Europe, had, it must be repeated, no ex- istence in the tenth century ; they came into being with the development of the separate languages of the West. The greatest and best men of the earlier Middle Ages ever regarded the "One Church, One State" idea as the only one worth striving to realise. Apart from them, where among the nobles there was ambition, it was for their own personal aggrandisement, and where among the people there was loyalty, it was to men, not to localities. To work or to die for a country, i.e., for some section of what had been the empire whether of Rome or of Charlemagne, was an idea not entertained by men of the tenth century ; and that for the simple reason that then no well-defined large sections or countries had been carved out of it.

What little knowledge we have of the political side of The See of the pontificate of John XV. has been given right up to his death, in order to leave the way clearer for the more purely ecclesiastical events of his reign. Of these, the most

1 Although some of these details rest directly only on Amalricus and other late authorities — e.g. the fifteenth-century edition of the L. P. — they are regarded as well founded.

352 JOHN XV.

important was his encounter with the famous Gerbert in connection with the See of Rheims. It has been already stated that, on the death of Louis V., the Carolingian line of sovereigns came to an end,1 and that Hugh Capet succeeded to the name of king (June 987). But descendants of Charlemagne, of one kind or another, legitimate or other- wise, were not yet wanting. One of these latter was Arnulf, the natural son of Lothaire, the predecessor of Louis V. With a view to attaching him to his interests, Hugh, against the advice of many of his friends, caused him to be elected to the vacant See of Rheims (December 988). This was certainly a very risky step to take ; the more so that at this period the occupant of the See of Rheims was not only the first ecclesiastic in Western France,2 but had there a preponderating political influence. However, Arnulf was duly installed after taking an oath of allegiance to the new dynasty, and received the pallium from the Pope.3 Another member of the Carolingian line was Charles of Lorraine, the youngest son of Louis IV., d'Outremer, and consequently uncle of Arnulf. To make good his claim to the title of king, he took up arms. Before long the important city of Rheims was in his hands.4 Not unnaturally, Hugh conceived the idea that it had been betrayed to his rival by its archbishop,

1 "Obiit Hludovicus rex juvenis ; qui nihil fecit. . . . Hie deficit regnum Caroli Magni." Odorannus, Chron. an. 987, ap. P. Z,., t. 142.

2 (Remensis ecclesia) "quae caput regni Francorum est:" Ep. Gerbert, 154. Cf. ep. 181.

3 Richer, iv. 31. Cf. ep. Gerberti 160, in which, in Arnulf's name, Gerbert asks a friend "ut pallium a domno papa per vos consequamur. ' According to some recent writers Arnulf was elected in May 989, and the capture of Rheims by Charles effected in November 989. Lot, Lcs derniers Carolingiens, p. 411. Sevinus or Siguinus of Sens had also received the pallium from " Pope John " (XV. ?). " Et primatum Gallise suscepit," Odorannus, Chron., an. 999.

4 About August 989. Cf. epp. Gerbert, 162, 3.

john xv. 353

especially as Arnulf had confessedly already favoured Charles. Accordingly the king dispatched (c. July, 990) a strong letter to the Pope to ask his aid in deposing Arnulf, " so that the royal power may not be brought to naught." " Arnulf," he writes, " who is said to be the son of King Lothaire, after perpetrating the greatest wrongs against me and my kingdom, was nevertheless treated by me as though he had been my son. He was presented with the See of Rheims, and then 'took an oath of fidelity to me, which cancelled all other engagements. . . . He made the soldiers and burghers of his city swear that they would remain faithful to me, if he himself should chance to fall into the hands of the enemy. And now, in face of all this, he has himself opened the gates of his city to the enemy, as I am most credibly informed. . . . He pre- tends that he is at the mercy of the enemy. . . . But if he is a prisoner, why does he refuse to be delivered ? . . . . If he is free, why does he not come to me? .... He has been summoned by the archbishops and the bishops of his province, but he replies he owes them no service. Hence do you, who hold the place of the apostles, decree what must be done against this second Judas, that the name of God may not be blasphemed by me, and that, inflamed by a just resentment and your silence, I may not devise ruin against the city and province. You will have no excuse to offer to God, your judge, if you are not ready to comply with our request." x There is no mistaking the tone of this letter. Threats are pronounced against the Pope, unless he does — what is just ? No ! unless he does the king's will. Writing to the same effect as their king, the bishops of his party, though they say they regard the Pope as "another Peter, and the defender and upholder of the Christian faith," finish their letter by giving him to

1 Ap. Gerb., Acta Rem., ed. OIL, p. 202. VOL. IV. 23

354 JOHN XV.

understand that his condemnation of Arnulf will be the gauge of their loyalty.1 The coun- With the traditional goodwill of the Popes for the Basle. ' Carolingian line, and after the reception of letters written in such a hectoring tone, there is no need to suppose that presents made to him by the opposite side were the cause of the king's envoys meeting with a cold reception from the Pope. Indeed, the abbot Leo, whom John sent as his legate into France, expressly declared that the accusation of taking bribes which had been levelled against the Pope was a mere calumny.2 The king's envoys displayed the same insulting kind of deference to the Pope as the letters they bore. They only condescended to wait three days in Rome for a favourable answer to their petition.3 They were back again in France in September 990.

The fortune of war, however, came to the help of Hugh Capet. In April 991 Rheims and its archbishop fell into his hands, and on June 17 he brought Arnulf to trial in the basilica of St. Basle at Verzy, near Rheims. There were present at the council bishops (no more than thirteen in all) from the provinces of Rheims, Bourges, Lyons, and Sens. Siguinus of Sens, John's vicar in Gaul, was the president of the assembly ; and Arnulf, the bishop of Orleans, because most learned and eloquent,4 was, as it

1 lb. " Suffragetur nobis vestra auctoritas, in hujus apostatas dejec- tione . . . . ut sciamus et intelligamus cur inter ceteros apostolatum vestrum praeferre debeamus."

2 Ep. Leonis ad Hug. et Rob. reges., ib., p. 238, " Calumniatis Romanum pontificem, qui munera sibi oblata recepit."

3 The opponents of Arnulf contended that, bribed by the opposite party, the Pope paid no attention to their letters. But the abbot Leo (ep. ad Hug., p. 243) pointed out that the tyranny of Crescentius pre- vented the Pope from acting as soon as he would have liked, but that he sent him as soon as he could. He (Leo), however, had not got beyond Aix before he heard that Arnulf had been already deposed.

4 Cone. Rem., c. 1. Lot, ittudes sur le rcgne de Hugues Capet, c. 2, is very full on this synod.

john xv. 355

were, the prosecutor for the crown. Among those present at the council was Gerbert, who had left the Carolingian party scarcely a twelvemonth before. It is from his pen only that our knowledge of the council of St. Basle comes.1 It is rather unfortunate that he did not draw up a verbatim report, for such a highly strung character as Gerbert could, under the circumstances, scarcely avoid producing a strongly coloured narration of what took place. The account given of this council in Labbe (ix. 736), from a continuation of the Historia of the monk Aimoin, is not worth much, as the said continuation is but a comparatively late compilation, containing, as it does, quotations from twelfth-century authors. However, from whatever source the continuation drew its material, it may be noted in passing that it is as favourable to Arnulf as Gerbert's account is unfavourable, and that it ascribes the action of the bishops in this council to fear of the king, and states that its decisions were opposed by Siguinus.

What told most against the archbishop in his examina- Arnulf tion before the council was the declaration of the priest council. Adalger. He affirmed that in opening the gates of the city to Charles he had but obeyed the express orders of his bishop, and, to prove the truth of his words, appealed to the judgment of God, and offered to submit to the ordeal of fire, boiling water, or red-hot iron.2 To the surprise of many " who thought that Arnulf would be condemned simply by the prejudiced decision of the bishops,"3 the president of the council invited any one

1 What Richer says of this council is taken from Gerbert's narrative, and is generally in his language. Gerbert wrote down his account of the council in 995.

2 Olleris, p. 182.

3 lb., Cone. Rem., c. 19. Another also of Arnulf 's opponents offered, through his serf ivermaclum), to walk over hot ploughshares ; ib., c. 30. Cf. Cone. Rem., c. 28, 9.

356 JOHN XV.

who thought fit to undertake the defence of the accused. The invitation was at once accepted by John, the scholastic of Auxerre, Romulf, abbot of Sens, and Abbo, abbot of Fleury, who are said by Gerbert himself to have been learned and eloquent men. They did not touch the question of the treason of Arnulf, but denied the com- petency of the synod to judge him. They cogently urged that the condemnation of a bishop was one of those more important cases (causes major es) which had to be reserved to the Pope.1 They quoted largely from the False Decretals to establish their contention.

But that the judgment of Arnulf should be left to the impartial tribunal of Rome was precisely what the king did not want. And consequently the abbots' contention drew from Arnulf2 of Orleans, naturally a man of over- bearing temper, his famous invective against the See of Rome. It was such a speech as might have been looked for from such a quarter on such an occasion, but it was not the first time (nor will it be the last) that the legitimate authority of the See of Rome had been similarly assailed. The exercise of its lawful power called forth the Pompifex Maximus of Tertullian, and the vulgar abuse of Dr. Martin Luther. And no doubt to the end of time, seeing that we have had instances of it in every age up to this, our own days not excepted, the decisions of the Roman pontiffs,

1 Gerbert himself (ep. 217) points out that that was one of the lines of defence taken up by Arnulf s friends. "Alii Romano pontifici injuriam factam videri volunt, quasi sine ejus auctoritate, et sine suis viribus resumptis deponi non debuent." Cf. Cone. Rem., 0 23.

2 Arnulf and Gerbert became close friends. The bishop of Orleans was the latter's adviser in all his difficulties, and was his acknowledged patron. "Qua: michi vitanda essent, quaeve sequenda, docuistis, monuistis .... vestraeque clientele et dispositioni me meaque omnia committo." Ep. 210. Cf. ep. 190 to Arnulf, "mei animi custos." Cf. Pardiac's S. Abbott, pp. 301, 319, to get an insight into the temper of Arnulf.

JOHN XV. 357

when adverse to the pride or sensuality of men, will be met with rhetorical outbreaks similar to that of Arnulf of Orleans in the tenth century. His harangue enunciated principles subversive of every central authority ; principles which, strongly advocated by later Frenchmen at the time of the Great Schism in the West, would have subjected the head to the members ; principles which, in still later ages, taking the delusive name of the " Liberties of the Gallican Church," made the Church in France the degraded slave of an impure monarchy. Unfortunately, however, we have no means of knowing how much of Arnulf's philippic was spoken boldly out before the assembly or how much of it was simply grumbled into the ears of those who were sitting beside him. For, in introducing the bishop's oration, Gerbert has had the candour to write : " On this subject our father Arnulf spoke at large before the assembled fathers {publice) ; but much also that he said on the matter was only to those who were sitting beside him. Hence, fearing that to set down his thoughts in the disjointed way in which they were spoken would cause them to lose in effectiveness, I have preferred to bring them together, in order that the connected discourse may be more advan- tageous to the careful reader." x But the careful reader would be glad to know to how much of his diatribe Arnulf gave the added authority which comes from public utterance. " We indeed, most reverend fathers," he began,

1 " Multa super his pater A. publice locutus est, multa cum sibi tantum assidentibus contulit ; quae ne forte minus suavitatis (is this sarcastic ?) habeant ita sparsim posita ut sunt ab eo prolata, ea in unum colligere maluimus, ut continuata oratio plus utilitatis studioso lectori conferat." Cone. Rem., c. 28. Cf. the prologue of the synod, wherein Gerbert states the principles he intends to follow in his account of the council. He proposes sometimes to give the actual words of the speakers, at others to set forth in suitable language their weighty and eloquent opinions, and lastly, by developing some of their expressions, to make their meaning more clear.

358 JOHN XV.

* decide that, on account of the memory of Blessed Peter, the Roman Church must ever be held in honour; saving the authority of the council of Nice, which the Roman Church itself has always held in veneration. The decrees of the sacred councils too, made indeed at different places and times, but by the One Spirit, we decree must ever remain intact and be observed by all. Now there are two things which we must watch especially ; viz. lest the silence of the Roman Pontiff, or some new decree of his, should destroy the authority of existing canons. For if his silence with regard to them takes away their force, then, when he is silent on them, all the laws are without effect. Or if a new constitution is to have that result, what is the good of the laws already passed, if all are to be dependent on the will of one man ? . . . . Would we then detract from the prerogatives of the Roman Pontiff? Certainly not; for if, on the one hand, the Bishop of Rome be commendable for his learning and virtue, we need fear neither his silence nor his new decrees. And if, on the other hand, he be notorious for ignorance, timidity, or avarice, or if, as under the existing1 tyranny at Rome, his freedom is interfered with, then still less is his silence or fresh constitution to be feared. For he who is in any way in opposition to the laws cannot destroy their effect. But, oh, unhappy Rome, who to our fathers gave glorious lights, but to us has belched forth horrible darksome portents which will be infamous to the ages to come ! Of old we received (from Rome) the illustrious Leos, the great Gregorys. . . . But what do we see (there) to-day ? " Then follow the denuncia- tions of John XII. and Boniface Franco which we have already cited under their biographies. "To such wicked monsters, ignorant of all learning human and divine, are countless good and learned priests to be subject? That 1 " Romre tyrannide prrcvalente." Ih

JOHN XV. 359

the head of the churches of God is so debased is due to our impiety, who seek the things which are our own, not those which are of Jesus Christ. ... It would be better for us to seek for a decision from the bishops of Belgium or Germany than from that city where justice is measured by gold. ... In Rome at present, as it is reported iut fama est), there is scarce one with learning enough to be ordained doorkeeper (ostiarius). ... In comparison with the Roman Pontiff, ignorance in other bishops is to some extent toler- able ; but in him who has to judge of the faith, life, and morals of bishops, and of the whole Catholic Church, it is quite intolerable." l However, he contends, the case was referred to the Pope, who did not choose to take it up. Hence, if he will not speak, then existing laws must. " But unhappy indeed are the times, in which we have to suffer the loss of the guidance of so great a Church ! To what city shall we be able to have recourse in the future, now that we see the mistress of all nations destitute of all resources whether human or divine? .... For this city (Rome), after the fall of the Empire, lost the Church of Alexandria ; it has lost Antioch ; and, to say nothing of Africa and Asia, now Europe itself is departing from it. Constantinople has withdrawn itself from its jurisdiction, and the interior parts of Spain know not its decisions."2

1 " In Romano (pontifice) autem, cui de fide, vita, moribus, disciplina sacerdotum deque universali catholica ecclesia judicandum est, intoler- abilis videri potest." lb. Here, at least in words, we have the position of the Pope in the Church fully acknowledged.

2 Naturally enough, considering the domination of the Moors. But how exaggerated many of these statements were was shown by the Pope's legate, the abbot Leo, in his fine letter to the kings Hugh and Robert. And to anyone who has taken the trouble to read the bio- graphies of the Popes in this volume, the shallowness of Arnulfs declamation will be sufficiently apparent. The acknowledged learning of the abbot Leo and of the Pope himself is enough to refute the denunciations of ignorance levelled by Arnulf against the Church of Rome.

360 JOHN XV.

Amuifis Considering his guilt and utter helplessness, it is not to

deposed.

be wondered at that Arnulf publicly confessed his treason and abdicated. In deciding to condemn the archbishop and to deprive him of his ring, crozier, and pallium, the fathers of the council, evidently in doubt as to the legality of what they were about to do, were at pains to declare more than once 1 that their action was in no way derogatory to the Pope, as Arnulf had not appealed to him, and the Pope himself had not responded to their advances. In virtue of their sentence, Arnulf had to surrender into their hands the insignia of his office and to read aloud a deed of renunciation of his see. In his stead was elected the author of the acts we have been quoting, viz. Gerbert, who thus, says a modern author, obtained " what he had been aiming at for several years."2 And it must not be forgotten that he it is on whom we have to draw for our information concerning his predecessor's trial. It is only fair, however, to add that Gerbert himself, in writing3 to the Pope, indignantly denies having had any designs on the See of Rheims : " I did not proclaim the crimes of Arnulf. I simply abandoned the side of a public sinner. God and those who know me are my witnesses that I left him, not, as my detractors say, in the hope of obtaining his see, but that I might not become a partner in the sins of others."

1 " Jam episcopi invidia Romani privilegii carere videbantur, cum Arnulfus nee ad alios judices, nee ad sedem apostolicam provocasset .... quod bene quidem licuerat si se justam habere causam putasset" (c. 40). " Hrcc (annulum, etc.) ergo eum reddere debere, neque vero in hoc facto primati Romano pnejudicium inferri, quod neque ad eum ab Arnulfo provocatum sit, .... quodque ab episcopis et principe Romanus episcopus conventus respondere noluit." Cone. Rem., c. 45.

- Havet, Lettrcs de Gerbert, p. xxv. The decree of his election, ib., ep. 179.

3 Ep. 197, c. 995. Cf. ep. 217 and his speech at the council of Mouzon, where he declared that he resisted his appointment for some considerable time.

JOHN XV. 361

If there is one thing of which the acts of the council of The effort Rheims plainly give evidence, it is that the fathers of the council of synod fully expected that the Pope would attempt to forestall l° revise their decision. And so we find them endeavouring sentenced to forestall his action. By the canons of the False Decretals, the Pope* indeed, which were at this period universally acknowledged as authoritative, a bishop could not be condemned without reference to the See of Rome. But, in any case, acknow- ledging as they did that the primacy of the Bishop of Rome was a primacy of jurisdiction, they could not have logically called in question his right to reserve to himself such an important matter as the condemnation of a metropolitan. They elected, however, to take their stand on ancient decrees ; x and, acting more against the spirit than against the words of the old Canon Law, they maintained that it was with the bishops of the province concerned that the final decision on questions of discipline rested. Hence, while careful constantly to profess that they respected the rights of the Holy See, and while ac- knowledging that an appeal could be made to it by Arnulf, they declared that such appeal would be of no value when once they had passed sentence on the accused ; and they endeavoured, by throwing discredit on the private lives of some of the Popes of the period, to have it acknowledged that the possession of authority was dependent on the virtue of its would-be holder.

But bishops in a more independent position than those under the sway of Hugh Capet were not likely to allow such revolutionary principles to pass unchallenged.

Gerbert was not to be permitted to enjoy his new dignity The synod

of Chelles

in peace. Arnulf appealed to Rome, and the bishops 992

1 Can. 15 of the council of Antioch of 341 (August) ; cf. can. 9 of the council of Macon, October 585 ; and can. 7 of the third council of Carthage, August 397.

362 JOHN XV.

of Germany made haste to beg the Pope to annul the irregular proceedings of the council of Rheims.1 John at once began to take to task the prelates who had had a share in it.2 To consider their position they met in synod at Chelles, under the direction of Gerbert and the presidency of King Robert (May 992 ?). The decision they arrived at was to stand to what had been settled at Rheims, and to regard as null and void anything the Pope might do "against the decrees of the fathers," as they phrased it.3 They accordingly took no heed of the invitation of the Pope to betake themselves either to Aix-la-Chapelle or to Rome to have the matter in dispute settled by a full council.4 The affair dragged on. In reply to a request from King Hugh that he would come to France to look into the whole question himself,5 John again sent the monk Leo, abbot of St. Boniface, in his stead. He had been sent before in response to the first embassy of Hugh Capet, but had got no further than Aix when he heard that Arnulf had been already deposed.6 The abbot, who proved himself to be as prudent as he was learned, was well received by the German bishops, and straightway opened negotiations with the French kings for the holding of a council. The choice of the place of meeting was to be left with them. They named Mouzon, in the depart-

1 Richer, iv. 89, 95.

2 By mistake, Richer puts Pope Benedict for Pope John XV.

3 Richer, ib. The exact date of this council is not known. It was certainly not later than 995.

4 Acta Cone. Mosom., ap. Olleris, p. 245 ; cf. also the letter of the abbot Leo, ib., p. 243.

6 Ep. ap. Labbe, ix. 743 ; ep. Gerberti, 188. Hugh declared that'.he was not aware that he had in any way acted against the Apostolic See, and that he was not in the least unwilling to abide by the Pope's decision — " Hoc ex integro arTectu dicimus, ut intelligatis et cognoscatis nos et nostros vestra nolle declinare judicia."

6 "Atubi Aquis venimus, jam eum depositum invenimus, et neque aliquod responsum a vobis habere potuimus." Ep. Leonis, ap. Oil., 243.

JOHN XV. 363

ment of Ardennes, on the Roman road from Rheims to Trier, and, though just in the territories of Otho, still in the diocese of Rheims.

The firm attitude of the Pope showed Gerbert that his Gerbert in- position was anything but safe. He must, therefore, ance to inspire his friends with the same spirit of obstinate resist- ance that animated his own heart ; they must be made to believe that their rights were being attacked in him, and that the voice of God was manifest in the decision they had come to at Rheims.1 Constantine, abbot of St. Mesmin (Loiret), is reminded 2 of the proverb that one's own house is in danger when one's neighbour's wall is on fire; and on Notger of Liege he urges3 that God knows His own (2 Tim. ii. 19), and that if He is with us, who is against us ? Coming strangely from one who had brought up all the engines of Canon Law to justify his conduct, he tells4 the monks of his old monastery of Aurillac that his enemies have brought the law to bear upon him, that he regards an armed encounter as more endurable than a legal contest, and asks their prayers. In the longest of all his letters5 he endeavours to prove to Wilderod of Strasburg that Arnulf had been legally and irrevocably condemned; and, like all others before and since his time who have not submitted to Rome when brought up for judgment and condemned, he complains that now " Rome, which up to this has been considered as the mother of all churches," curses the good and blesses the wicked. And to the Pope himself, again imitating the excuses of those who do wrong by not doing as they are ordered by proper authority, he puts forward 6

1 Owing to the fact that the letters of Gerbert are undated, and to a want of other dated sources, the exact order of the events of this period cannot be ascertained with certainty.

2 Ep. 191. 3 Ep. 193. 4 Ep. 194. 5 Ep. 217. 6 Ep. 199.

364 JOHN XV.

that he has hitherto so conducted himself in the Church as to be useful to many and injurious to no one.

At some date unknown to us in the course of this affair, John had separated from his communion the bishops who had condemned Arnulf. Gerbert would have his partisans disregard the excommunication. What they had decreed was in harmony with the will of God, and therefore not to be set aside by anybody. Seguin of Sens l must not listen to the mouth which has been opened at Rome to justify what had been condemned at Rheims, and to condemn what had there been called right. "If Pope Marcellus offered incense to Jove,2 must all the bishops do likewise?" The common law of the Catholic Church, he continued, must be the Gospel, the writings of the Apostles and the Prophets, the canons, inspired by God and consecrated by the veneration of the entire world, and the decrees of the Apostolic See, which are not contrary thereto? In conclu- sion, Seguin is urged to go on celebrating the Divine Mysteries as usual. The synod But all this plunging was of no avail. The meshes were 995. ' being tightly drawn round the recalcitrant prelate. The synod of Mouzon was held June 2, 995. The acts4 of the council open thus: "In accordance with the mandate of Pope John, a synod was held in the diocese of the metro- politan See of Rheims. . . . When silence had been pro- claimed, Aymo (Haimo), bishop of Verdun, arose and in French (gallice) told how the Lord Pope John had invited the bishops of the Gauls (Galliarum) to meet in synod at the palace of Aix-la-Chapelle, and how they had been un- willing to go thither. He had then invited them to the

1 Ep. 192. 2 A myth.

Principles of course very convenient for destroying the power of any central authority. 4 Ap. Oil., p. 245.

JOHN XV. 365

city (Rome), and they had not come. Now, in his anxiety to meet their wishes {pro sua sollicitudine), he had ordered the council to be held in the province of Rheims, and wished to learn from his vicar the case between Arnulf and Gerbert. Then he produced the papal bull with its leaden seal. This he broke before them all, and read the Pope's letter of authorisation. It began : ' John, bishop and servant of the servants of God to all the archbishops of the Gauls, health and apostolic benediction.'"

Owing, it was said, to the discovery of intended treachery against the French kings on the part of the Germans, the Frankish bishops as a body absented themselves from the assembly.1 Gerbert, however, presented himself before the papal legate and the four German prelates, who, with various abbots and laymen, formed the council which was to hear his case. He endeavoured, in a speech of no little merit, to prove that he had not betrayed his lord (Arnulf), committed him to prison, nor usurped his see. And he assured his judges that if there had been anything irregular about his election, it was not due to any malice on his part, but to the needs of the time. But he failed to make any impression on them. No definite sentence was, how- ever, passed; but it was decided to hold another council at Rheims itself on the first of July in the presence of Arnulf as well as of Gerbert. Meanwhile the abbot Leo declared Gerbert suspended. At once the fiery prelate denied the right of anybody so to treat him, innocent as he was. " But, admonished in a fraternal manner by the modest and upright lord archbishop, Liodulf of Trier, not to give an occasion of scandal to his enemies, as though he wished to oppose the orders of the Pope, in the name of obedience he consented to refrain from

1 In consequence of the prohibition of Hugh Capet. Richer, iv. 96.

366 JOHN XV.

saying Mass till the time fixed (July i) for the next synod." l The letter In the interval between the two synods, Gerbert's narra- abbotiLeo tive of the council of Rheims was put into the hands of kings6' the legate, a narrative, as the abbot justly said, "full of Robert""1 insults and blasphemies against the Roman Church." He at once wrote to the two kings, Hugh and Robert, that he was so thunderstruck at the contents of that document that he would have at once returned with it to Rome had not they declared that they wished to have the affair settled in accordance with the canons. He pointed out to them that they were acting the part of antichrist ; for he was antichrist who was in opposition to Christ. And whereas Christ had proclaimed the Church of Peter the foundation of all the churches, they had dared to speak of it as a marble statue and temple of idols.2 Then, hitting at the profane science of Gerbert (knowledge certainly useless for the end of man if not connected with the science of the soul), he said : Because the vicars of Peter and his disciples did not choose to take as their masters Plato, Virgil, nor Terence, nor yet the herd of philosophers who have written of the earth and sky, you say they are not fit to be doorkeepers (ostiarii). He re- minded the kings that Peter was ignorant of the works of those authors, but was made the doorkeeper of the kingdom of heaven. He upbraided them for calumniating the Pope in the matter of taking presents, and for speaking against certain Popes who had passed out of this life. Asserting that it was characteristic of the Roman Church to aid the weak and condemn the wicked,3 he showed, by

1 The acts of the C. of Mouzon, ap. Oil., p. 250.

2 Acta Cone. Rem., c. 28.

3 "Semper hoc proprium habuit Romana ecclesia, ut justos justificet, et impios condemnet, hostes expellat, filios recreet." Ep. ap. Oil., p. 242.

JOHN XV. 367

citing appeals1 made to it, that " the Roman Church is still honoured and venerated by all the churches, and is by you alone insulted and outraged." It was owing to the oppres- sion of Crescentius that he (Leo) had not been sent off at once to examine into the affair of Arnulf. The courage- ous legate finished his letter by denouncing the synod of Rheims ; " Who could hear with equanimity of an arch- bishop, first deceived, then confined in a dungeon for a long time and afterwards led, half naked and bound, by a band of uproarious soldiers before a synod, and there condemned on the evidence of one witness?" As for Arnulf's confession, it was wrung from him ; for he had been given to understand that his life depended on his conforming to the will of the synod.

Unfortunately, we are much in the dark as to what a second happened after the council of Mouzon. However, as it Rheims, was there decided to hold a council at Rheims, we may 99S' suppose that that decision was carried into effect. More- over, there is, at least, the authority of the continuator of Aimoin2 that the synod was there held, and that of Abbo also, who, in writing 3 to the legate Leo and speaking of the flood of eloquence which fell from his lips at Rheims, would seem to allude to it. Further, it is gener- ally supposed that it was at this council that was pro- nounced the apology for the acts of the synod at St. Basle which is known as " Oratio episcoporum habita in Concilio Causeio in prsesentia Leonis " ; * and that too even though there is no certainty as to the meaning of "Causeio."

1 They have all been noticed in these pages.

2 C. 46, as quoted by Hugh of Fleury, Reg. Franc. Act., ap. Migne, t. 163.

3 Ep. 15, ap. ib., t. 139. Cf. Lot, Etudes sur le regne de Hugues Capet, p. 99 f. Paris, 1903.

4 Ap. Oil., p. 251. The defence is conjectured to be the work of Gerbert.

368 JOHN XV.

From this last document it appears that the defence was pronounced before an assembly of the bishops "of all Gaul " ; and that in the person of the abbot Leo " the Apostolic See presided over the assembly." The apologist brought forward authorities to prove that it had been already decided by the Apostolic See itself that traitors had to be removed from their sees. Hence he spared no pains to establish the treason of Arnulf. Gerben But it was all to no purpose apparently. The sentence

demned, °f tne council seems to have been to some extent adverse "5- to Gerbert. We find him at least asserting1 that the

legate Leo had been able to get his way against him by approving of the marriage of King Robert with Bertha, his second cousin, and, moreover, joined to him by the bonds of spiritual relationship. However, while it is certain that Arnulf was not freed from confinement till the pontificate of Gregory V.,2 viz. till some time after November 997, things became meanwhile very uncomfortable for Gerbert. He was regarded as excommunicated, and treated as such. As he tells3 us himself, neither his clerical nor lay depend- ants would eat with him or be present at his Mass. But he was not at the end of his resources. He betook himself to Rome (996), and endeavoured by the force of his eloquence to bring the Pope (now Gregory V.) over to his side. Richer,4 the devoted partisan of Gerbert, avers that he was so far successful that Gregory ordered still further inquiry into the matter. But Gerbert could not maintain himself at Rheims. His patron, Hugh Capet, had died October 24, 996, and Robert, his son, had ends

1 Ep. 181. " Ut michi a Remensibus per litteras significatum est."

2 Aimoin, in vit. Abbonis, c. 12.

3 Ep. 181. " Memini etiam meos conspirasse non solum milites, sed et clericos, ut nemo mecum comederet, nemo sacris interesset." This letter is dated by Havet as late as the spring or summer of 997.

4 L. iv., sub Jin.

JOHN XV. 369

of his own to serve. The archbishop accordingly left France for ever about the early summer of the year 997. And though he made a second journey to Rome, his cause was lost. King Robert released Arnulf, and the Pope confirmed him, temporarily at least, in his see1 (997). If, however, Gerbert's career in Gaul was at an end, there was still a great future in store for the learned prelate. His former pupil, Otho III., had the greatest esteem for his genius, and was most anxious to attach him to his person. He procured Gerbert's election first to the vacant See of Ravenna (998), and afterwards, as we shall see, to that of Rome itself.

There also came to Rome, more than once, during the s. Adalbert pontificate of John XV., a bishop of very different mettle ° rague to Gerbert. That was the gentle St. Adalbert of Prague, the Apostle of Prussia.2 We are told that after he had been consecrated bishop of Prague in 983, " he never smiled again," so overcome was he at the thought of the responsi- bilities he incurred by taking upon himself the care of souls. A native of Bohemia — his Slavonic name, Voytiech, signifies the comfort of the army — he began his episcopal career by fervently urging on his countrymen the adoption of a higher standard of morality. The Bohemians had but recently taken the name of Christians ; and though they had so far changed their name, their habits were still practically un- changed.3 It seemed to Adalbert that he was but casting pearls before swine. His hearers, thoroughly gross-minded

1 lb.

2 Cf. the two Lives of the saint, ap. M. G. SS.f iv. The first (repro- duced ap. P. L., t. 137) was written by a monk (probably John Canaparius) in the monastery of SS. Boniface and Alexius on the Aventine two or three years after the death of Adalbert. The second Life was written by Bishop Bruno, under S. Henry I. (tio24) of Germany, and was largely founded on the first.

3 "Plerique vero nomine tenus christiani, ritu gentilium vivunt."' Vit., c. 1, ap. P. L.

VOL. IV. 24

370 JOHN XV.

{ad carnalem sensiun lapsi), u would not follow their pastor." Their pastor therefore decided to leave his wilful flock. "It was better," he thought, " to leave them than to lose his time with a people who, with obstinate blindness, were hurrying on to their own destruction." J Three causes especially moved Adalbert to leave his people. Their practice of polygamy, the want of celibacy among his clergy, (detestanda conjugia clericorum), and the fact that with " accursed gold " a Jew had bought so many Christian captives and slaves that the good bishop could not ransom them all. Adalbert Adalbert fled to Rome (989), and with tears asked moniTeS * the Pope what he ought to do. John XV. was not a man of the courage of Gregory the Great. He did not, therefore, in God's name, address Adalbert as Gregory had addressed Augustine; but, falling in with the saint's own wishes, he told him to leave the sheep who would not follow him. A student himself, he gave advice which he knew a student would welcome. " For if with others you cannot bring forth fruit, it is not worth while losing your own soul. . . . Seek quiet contemplation, and live among those who pass their time in retirement amid studies sweet and healthful."2 This advice Adalbert would follow. But first he would go on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. However, after giving to the poor all his own money and what he had received from the Empress Theophano (who was then in Rome) to help him on his journey, he went first to Monte Cassino.3 Thence he betook himself to the wild

1 Vit., #., c. 12. 2 C. 13.

3 Here he showed, what some seem to call in question, that sanctity was not in the least inconsistent with spirit. The good monks had expressed their readiness to receive Adalbert, and had pointed out to him how useful he would be to them, because as a bishop he would be able to consecrate their new churches, when he burst out : " Do you take me for a man or an ass, that, after practically ceasing to be a bishop by

JOHN XV. 371

mountainous district of Barrea, not far from Castel di Sangro, where dwelt in the monastery of St. Michael, in the Bright Valley (Val-Luce), the famous Greek abbot Nilus. This Basilian monk, whose austerity of life was only matched by the sweetness of his disposition, and of whom we shall have more to say in the next biography, advised Adalbert to return to Rome, and furnished him with letters of introduction to the famous abbot (Leo) of the monastery of SS. Boniface and Alexius. Whether or not because he thought he ought to go back to his diocese, Leo gave the bishop anything but a warm reception. Nothing, however, could damp the ardour of Adalbert ; and at length, on Maundy - Thursday (990), with the concurrence of the Pope and the cardinals, he received the habit of a monk.1

But he was not to be allowed to die carrying water for He re- the community. The archbishop of Mayence sent an Bohemia, influential deputation to urge the necessity of the return of Adalbert to his diocese (994). At the synod held to con- sider the matter, though the Pope himself and the bishop's fellow-monks wished to keep him in Rome, the eloquence of the head of the deputation — no less a person than the brother of the reigning duke of Bohemia, Boleslaus II. — pre- vailed. Then the Apostolicus (the Pope), " influenced not by his own feelings, but by the justice of the case," consented that Adalbert should return to Prague, but on the under- standing that, if the people would not hear his words, he should be free to leave them again.

giving up the care of my spiritual children, I should now, as a bishop but in name, devote myself to consecrating your churches?" And, promptly turning his back on Monte Cassino, he set forth to seek St. Nilus (c. 15).

1 C. 16. " Statuit (Leo) .... D. apostolicum convenire, ut quicquid agendum foret, tanti patris sententia suorumque cardinalium consilia deliberarent." Cf. Passio S. Adalberti (written c. 1000), c. 2.

372 JOHN XV.

After " an immense journey," Adalbert was received in his episcopal city with every demonstration of joy.1 But the gentle bishop could make little or no impression on the savage manners of the Bohemians. The cruel murder of a woman " taken in adultery," who had fled for protection to the bishop and the Church, and other deeds " even more barbarous," decided Adalbert once again (995) to seek "the walls of sweet Rome."

Unfortunately for our saint, his friend and protector, John'_XV., died (March 996) soon after his return to Rome. In connection with the election of his successor Gregory V., there came to Rome both Otho III., over whom Adalbert soon exerted a very great influence,2 and St. Willigis, arch- bishop of Mayence, who was as determined as ever that the bishop of Prague should return to his post. While at Rome he never ceased importuning Gregory, by word of mouth, and, on his return home, by letter, till the Pope ordered Adalbert to return to the North. When amidst the tears of all he left his " sweet monastery " for the last time, his only consolation was that he had obtained leave to go and preach the Gospel to the heathen if he failed to make any impression on his own people.3

Arrived at Mayence after a journey of nearly two months, he there found the emperor. With him the saint stayed for some time, striving to raise his mind to things of heaven. That he was emperor, said Adalbert to him, was nothing. He must remember he was a man, and would have to die. Meanwhile he must be the father of the poor, the support of the good, the dread of evil-doers. Whilst in the imperial palace he showed himself so far the

1 C. 18.

1 Because, to Otho "circa servos Dei maximum studium .... fuit, crebro alloquitur S. Adalbertum .... audiens libenter qusecumque sibi diceret." C. 22.

3 Vit., c. 22.

john xv. 373

servant of all that he was discovered to be in the habit of "washing" the boots of king and porter alike!1 After a pilgrimage to Tours and to Fleury by the Loire, where was the body of " our father Benedict," adds the biographer, Adalbert prepared to return to his see. But this time his people would not receive him. There was too great a difference, they said, between his life and theirs. The saint accordingly availed himself of the Pope's permission and turned him to the heathen. After converting many of the Poles, he went into the land of the barbarous Prussians, "whose god is their belly (Philip, iii. 19), and whose avarice is strong as death,"2 and whose fierce pagan- ism was only crushed by the swords of the Teutonic knights in the thirteenth century. Among these cruel pagans did Adalbert sow the seed of the Gospel in the best way, viz. by his blood ; for he soon obtained the martyr's crown he had longed for,3 and the title of the Apostle of the Prussians (April 23, 997 ).4 " His memory," writes Gregorovius, " was preserved in the monastery of S. Bonifazio, and from this abbey on the Aventine, as from a martyr colony, other brave apostles, fired by Adalbert's example, went forth to the savage country of the Slavs."

This outline of the career of Adalbert, as drawn from the interesting biography of his disciple, brings out in clear light the character of John XV. also. It represents him as the counterpart of the bishop of Prague, as a man fond of retirement and quiet study, and as sympathising with those whose tastes were akin to his own.

1 "Ab janitore usque ad principem regiae domus omnium caligas aqua abluit, et purgatos sordibus eos suo loco restituit." C. 23.

2 " Pruzzorum fines adiret, quorum deus venter est, et avaricia juncta cum morte." C. 27.

3 "Erant enim multse nationes per circuitum, per quas aut sibi martyrium aut eis baptismi gratiam conferre potuit." C. 25.

4 C. 30.

374 JOHN xv.

St. Adalbert, and, if sufficient reliance can be placed on the Russian Chronicle known as that of Nestor} Pope John also had relations with another Slav people, the Russians. Since the ninth century, when St. Ignatius and Photius sent bishops among them, Christianity had been making some little progress among the Russians. Political and commercial relations between them and the Greek Empire served to increase what knowledge of the revealed truth there was in the kingdom of KiefT. This knowledge was deepened by the baptism of the reigning Princess Olga (955), and by the intercourse kept up with their country- men by those of the Russians who took service with the Greek emperor, and formed the commencement of the famous Varangian guard. St. Adalbert preached among the Tauroscythians, as Leo the Deacon (c. 989) calls the Russians, for about a year. But it was only under Vladimir (972-1015), the grandson of Olga, that the con- version of the Russians made any substantial headway. And if the change wrought in their king by the teachings of Christianity could be regarded as any sort of gauge of the improvement which the Gospel worked among the people, civilising indeed must have been the effect of Vladimir's action in bringing into his kingdom preachers of " Christ, and Him crucified." From being a sanguinary debauchee, Vladimir under Christian influences became a saint. Most quaint is the story of his conversion as told in the pages of Nestor. He was convinced that under paganism there was no hope of the elevation of his people.

1 Cf. a French translation by L. Leger, Paris, 1884. There also exists a German translation by Schloezer, Goettingen, 1802. The original has been edited by Miklosich, at Vienna, i860, and by the Archaeological Commission at St. Petersburg, 1872. The Chronicle is the work of an anonymous monk of the eleventh century, and is the first national document, prior to the twelfth century, which treats of the history of the Russians.

john xv. 375

He must introduce some other faith among them. With that end in view, he sent envoys to seek for religious information among the Greeks, Latins, Moslems, and Jews. Accordingly " there came to him Mohammedan Bulgarians (Finnish-Bulgarians of the Volga, or Black Bulgarians) who said to him : ' Prince, you are wise and prudent, but you have no religion. Take our religion, and pay homage to Mahomet.' And Vladimir said : ' What is your faith ? ' They replied: 'We believe in God. And Mahomet has taught us to practise circumcision, not to eat pork nor drink wine, but after death to be happy with women.' Vladimir heard them with some pleasure, for he was a libertine ; but he did not like the idea of circumcision and abstinence from wine and pork. So he said : ' Drink is the delight of the Russians ; without it we cannot live.'

" Then came the Niemtsy (Germans) from Rome, saying : ' We have come from the Pope. He has ordered us to tell you that your country is like our country, but your faith is not like ours, for our faith is the light. We adore the God who has made heaven and earth, the stars, the moon, and all things, but your gods are of wood.' Vladimir said : ' What are your commandments?' ' To fast accord- ing to one's strength, to eat or drink always to the greater glory of God, according to the command of our master St. Paul' (i Cor. x. 31). Vladimir said to the Germans: 1 Begone, for our ancestors have not admitted such doc- trines.' When the Jewish Kozares (Khazars, Kharaites) heard this, they came and said .... 'The Christians believe in Him whom we have crucified. For ourselves, we believe in one only God, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob.' And Vladimir said : ' What are your observances ? ' They answered : ' Circumcision, abstinence from the flesh of swine and hares, and the celebration of the Sabbath.' He said to them : ' Where

376 JOHN XV.

is your country?' They replied: 'Jerusalem.' He further asked : ' Do you live there now ? ' They re- sponded : ' God was angry with our fathers, and has dispersed us throughout the world for our sins, and our country has been delivered to the Christians.' He said to them : " How do you teach others, when you are your- selves rejected by God, and dispersed by Him? If God loved you and your law, you would not be scattered in strange lands. Would you have this evil to come to us also ? " The chronicler then relates the coming of a " Greek philosopher," and gives his arguments at great length. To produce a deep impression on the imagination of the rude barbarian, the "philosopher" spared neither dramatic eloquence nor the subtle use of kindred arts. By showing the king a picture on which the last judgment was painted with terrifying detail, u he made Vladimir sigh." " Be baptized," said the philosopher, " if you would be on the right hand with the just." " I will wait a little," naively replied the king, u for I wish to think over all the beliefs."

Vladimir then sent (987) ten wise men to study the various religions in the places in which they were practised. When they reached Constantinople the emperor spared no effort to make a lasting impression on the senses of the barbarians. u Prepare the church and your clergy," said he to the patriarch ; ■ put on your pontifical robes, that they may see the glory of our God." The envoys were completely won. The transcendent beauty of the Church of St. Sophia v\as enough of itself to have won their hearts. But when its beauty was enhanced by the bright glow of torch and candle, by the sweet perfume of the incense, by the magnificent vestments of the priests, by the solemnity of the ceremonial, and by the majestic harmony of the music, its charm was irresistible. The envoys returned to

john xv. 377

their master, and reported that among the Moslem Bul- garians there was no joy in their services, but a frightful sadness and a horrible stench ; among the Germans nothing beautiful; but among the Greeks everything that was lovely. " We saw many fine things in Rome, but what we saw at Constantinople makes a man wholly forget himself."

No doubt most of these details as related by Nestor are not in accordance with strict truth. But they are true in the spirit if not in the letter. They give the funda- mental reason why the Russians preferred to accept their Catholicism — for the faith taught at both centres was then the same — rather at the hands of Greek monks from Constantinople than from Latin missionaries from Rome.

In 989, as a result of a successful campaign against the Empire, Vladimir secured the hand of a Greek princess. He was baptized by the priests who accompanied Anna, and became a saint.

Of the marriage of Vladimir with Anna, and of his subsequent baptism, there is no doubt. And we may take it as also true that, before deciding as to whether his people should be ecclesiastically subject to Constantinople or Rome, Vladimir entered into negotiations with the patriarch Nicholas II., the Emperor Basil II., and Pope John XV. Though immediately subject to the jurisdiction of the patriarchal throne of Constantinople, the Russians, of course, acknowledged the Pope of Rome as head of the Church Catholic. Hence for some considerable time after the definite schism between the East and West under Michael Cerularius, the metropolitans of KiefT (Kiev) remained faithful in their allegiance to Rome. In fact, it was not till the middle of the fifteenth century that the metropolitans of Moscow definitely became schismatics

378 JOHN XV.

and not till the beginning of the sixteenth that those of Kieff followed their example.1

John showed his love of peace by his successful en- deavours to prevent war between our wretched King Ethelred the Unready or Redeless, and Richard I. the Fearless, duke of Normandy. By Ethelrcd's marriage (1002) with Emma,2 Richard's daughter, there began that close relation between this country and the comparatively newly formed Norman Duchy which was destined to be so fateful for England. But in the year 991, of which we are now treating, Norman influence was vigorously re- pelled. For some unknown cause, perhaps because the Normans were helping their Danish kinsmen in their descents on our shores, symptoms of war between England and Normandy showed themselves. On his side, Richard proceeded against the English who were in his dominions, and Ethelred, on his, made preparations to avenge this treatment of his subjects. Hearing of the impending war, John at once dispatched Leo (who is described in our

1 Cf Vicissitudes de Fe'glise catholique en Pologne et en Russic, Paris, 1843, p. 9 f. On this whole subject of the conversion of the Russians, see A Hist, of the Church of Russia, by MouraviefF, Eng. trans., Oxford, 1842, p. 8 f . ; Hist, de la Russie, par A. Rambaud, Paris, 1878, Cs. 4 and 5 ; Hist, de tdglise, par Hergenroether, iii. 524. In the ninth of his Lectures on the History of the Eastern Church (London, 1861), Stanley treats of the beginnings of the Russian Church with that peculiar veneration for the Holy Eastern Church which is characteristic of certain Anglican writers. These works are supple- mented or corrected by Schlumberger (LYflofiSe byzantin, i. 706-11 and 771 f.), whose version of Nestor we have translated. See also Lessai sur I'Jglise russe catholique, by F. Romanet du Caillaud, ch. viii.

2 Henry of Huntingdon {Chron , 1. vi. init.), who " in my youth" heard from " some very old persons " certain facts of the reign of Ethelred (id.). Roger of Wendover (+1237), by mistakenly antedating the marriage between Emma and Ethelred, makes the strained relations between England and Normandy, mentioned in the text, spring from Ethelred's ill-treatment of his wife. Flores Hist., ad an. 990.

john xv. 379

sources as bishop of Trier, but who is thought to have been a vice-bishop, because Egbert is believed to have then been bishop of Trier) to mediate between the two princes. The result of the Pope's efforts had best be set forth in a letter 1 which Malmsbury describes as " epistola legationis." "John XV., Pope of the Holy Roman Church, to all the faithful. Be it known to all the faithful of our Holy Mother, the Church, .... that word has been brought to us by many of the enmity between Ethelred, king of the West Saxons, and the marquis Richard. Saddened at these difficulties between our spiritual children .... I dispatched an apocrisiarius, Leo, bishop of Trier, with letters exhorting them to lay aside their dissensions. Crossing over vast tracts of country and over the sea, he presented our letters to the king on Christmas Day. After taking council with the 'wiser sort' of both orders (with his Witan), for the love and fear of Almighty God, and of St. Peter, and out of regard for our paternal admonition, he granted a most firm peace to be observed without deceit by all his children and liegemen. On which account he sent Edelsin (Ethelsige), bishop of Sherborne, and two thanes to Richard. Receiving our words in a peaceful spirit and hearing of Ethelred's action, he ratified the treaty with his children and liegemen, on the understanding that, if any of their subjects or they themselves should break the peace in any way, due compensation was to be made. And neither party was to receive the subjects or enemies of the other without the production of a written permit (sigilluvi). Representatives of both princes swore to

1 Of course a German has been found who has questioned the authenticity of this letter. But it is accepted by Lingard {Hist, of England, i. 146) and by Freeman {The Norman Conquest, i. 286, cf. note EE, 3rd ed.), though the latter believes that the letter, as preserved for us by Malmesbury {Gesf. Reg., ii., § 166, ed. P. L.,t. 179), is com- pounded of the Pope's letter and the text of the treaty.

380 JOHN XV.

observe the treaty, which was signed at Rouen, March 1, 991." With Lingard, we must call attention to the interest- ing fact that " the oldest treaty now extant between any of our kings and a foreign power is drawn up in the name of a Pope."

During the pontificate of John XV. two archbishops of Canterbury came to Rome for their palliums. The first was /Ethelgar * (988-990) ; the second, his successor, Sigeric,2 whose curious itinerary we have frequently quoted. Of him the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records: "This year (990) Sigeric was consecrated archbishop, and afterwards went to Rome for his pall." His itinerary, all too brief, shows us that the feverish eagerness of the Catholic Englishman of to-day when in Rome to see the Pope and the famous churches of the Eternal City was surpassed by the learned archbishop of Canterbury of the year 990. One cannot but admire the systematic way in which he went to work, fearful lest he should lose a minute. The first day he was in Rome he made a circuit of the whole city. His first visit was, of course, to St. Peter's, the saint to whom Catholic England had so deep a devotion. Then, only naturally, he went to see his countrymen in the English quarter and to pray in the church dedicated to Our Lady (S. Maria in Sassia) which had been founded by our King Ina — S. Maria Scola Anglorum, as the itinerary calls it; S. Spirito in Sassia as it is now called. Next, crossing the river, he made for the Via Lata (Corso) ; and, after visiting the Church of " St. Laurentius in Craticula" (S. Lorenzo in Lucina, where, as says the Mirabilia, is his gridiron, crattcula,

1 "Pallium suscepit a papa Johanne," Gervase, Acta Pont. Cant., ap. Twysden, p. 1648. On his way to Rome he visited the famous monastery of St. Bertin, to which he showed himself a very great friend. Cf. the letter of its abbot Odbert to Archbishop Sigeric, ap. Memorials of St. Dunstan, p. 388.

2 A. -Sax. C/iron., ann. 990.

JOHN XV. 381

and the chain that he was bound withal), left the city by the Porta Flaminia. The first church, outside the walls, which he visited was the old basilica of St. Valentine, near the Ponte Molle, which, repaired by Leo III. and John IX., afterwards fell into ruins. Its site was only discovered in 1886. It was one of the halting places of the procession of the " great litany " on St. Mark's day (April 23), which started from S. Lorenzo in Lucina. Then he made his way across the country to the lovely Church of St. Agnes, and, as does the traveller to-day, looked with wonder on the bright mosaics of Pope Honorius I., already in the days of Sigeric over 350 years old. Gazing ever, as he journeyed on, at the walls and churches of the city he had come so far to see, he reached the great basilica of St. Lawrence, outside-the-walls, near which is now Rome's Campo Santo. The tombs of heathen Rome along the Via Appia seem to have had no more attraction for our archbishop than the pagan monuments in the city. He had eyes only for the Church of St. Sebastian, of which the alterations of Cardinal Borghese (161 1) have left not a trace behind. Moving on to the Via Lauren tina, he came to the Church of St. Anastasius (known to-day as SS. Vincenzo ed Anastasio), near the now famous Abbadia delle Tre Fontane, and remarkable as a good example of the early Christian basilicas. The Via Laurentina soon brought him on to the Via Ostiensis, and that to the basilica of St. Paul, outside-the-walls. Perhaps it was the sight of the mosaic medallions of the Popes which he saw there that moved Sigeric's clerk to attach to his itinerary a list of the Roman pontiffs of the tenth century. Re- entering the city by the Porta Capena (di S. Paolo), and passing the Monte Testaccio, he walked along the Via della Marmorata, and then ascending the Aventine, he inspected the churches of St. Boniface (S. Alessio) and St.

382 JOHN XV.

Sabina. In the cloister of the former he may have read the epitaph of that Crescentius "de Theodora" who had murdered Benedict VI., and retired to the monastery of S. Alessio to die (984). Descending the hill and keeping by the river, he went into the church of the Greek traders from Sicily or Calabria, viz. S. Maria Scola Graeca (S. M. in Cosmedin). Recrossing the Tiber, he went to see the mosaics of Pope Paschal I. in St. Cecilia's, and to ask the intercession of that great virgin and martyr. Finally, after naming three more churches to which the indefatigable archbishop turned his steps (St. Chrysogonus, S. Maria " transtyberi," and St. Pancratius), the clerk quietly adds : " Then we returned home " ! And well they might, after such a day of sight-seeing ! The next day the number of churches visited by Sigeric and his companion was not so great, for in the middle of the day "we dined with the Apostolic Lord John." Respect for The acceptance of John's mediation by Ethelred and the Peter still duke of Normandy, and the respectful visits to Rome of tained. our metropolitans, are enough to show that, despite the depressed state in which the Papacy was kept during this period, and despite the fact that some of the Popes at this time were a scandal to the Church, " reverence for the chair of Peter" was not extinguished " by the criminals who had filled it." And when to the conduct of the princes and prelates of the West we add the action of the whole Western Church turning to the Popes for grants of privilege, and of the Oriental Church looking for instruction in difficulties to the Holy See, it will be seen that the contrary assertion, which is that of Gregorovius,1 is not well founded. Some twenty grants of privilege are known 2 to have been conceded by John XV. to various monasteries and churches

1 Rome, iv. 404.

3 See John's Regest., ap. Jaffe, 3826 (2928) f. ; or epp ap. P. L., t. 137.

JOHN XV. 383

in Italy, France, Bohemia, the German Empire, and the Spanish March.

Of these charters only one will here be noticed ; and that Regimbaid because it brings us in contact with a man of especially remarkable attainments for the age in which he lived, and whose name is not often seen. The anonymous author, who about the year 1080 wrote a short notice of the bishops of Eichstadt,1 in due course treats of Bishop Regimbaid (or Riginold, gg6-c. 991), "a man illustrious indeed by his noble birth, but still more by his learning. Not only was he imbued with Latin, Greek, and even Hebrew literature, but, what was very remarkable, he was the first musician of his age." His historical labours gained him his bishopric ; and, if I rightly understand the passage treating of him,2 he composed a regular oratorio concerning the travels of his sainted predecessor Willibald. And it would appear that for this he wrote verses in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. This great bishop was a close friend of a powerful lady, Pia, who in her way was as accomplished as he was, for she far surpassed all her contemporaries in her skill at delicate needlework. After a life spent in work- ing for the Church, she became a nun (perfecte conversa ad Dominum), built a convent at Bergen,3 endowed and beautified it, and " handed it over to the Roman Church in an especial manner." Pope John XV. confirmed the gift 41 by his privilege,4 which we have still in our keeping."

It would appear, however, that if John granted many Donation things to others, there were not wanting some who made to the grants to him. In distant Poland the Judex Dagone, his ope" wife, and their two sons, during his reign gave " to St. Peter

1 From p. 741 to p. 1058, ap. P. Z., t. 146. 2 Ib.> c. 12, p. ion.

3 Pergin, in Bavaria, between Eichstadt and Neuburg.

4 The bull which is now extant, Jaffe, 3856, of March 31, 995, is thought by Pflugk-Harttung to be at least interpolated.

384 JOHN XV.

the town of Schinesghe (Schinesne, Gnesen) and all its dependencies " within the limits carefully described in their deed of gift. The Judex Dagone has been shown by Fabre to be Duke Mieszko I. (962-992), and Gnesen and its territory to be the Duchy of Poland, bounded by the Baltic, by Prussia, by Russia as far as Cracow, and by the Oder. It included, moreover, the country beyond the Oder to the mountains of Bohemia.1 Like most other similar donations of countries to the Popes, it was made with the object of ensuring its liberty against the encroachments of warlike and aggressive neighbours, in this case against the attacks of the Germans.

In an interesting paragraph of the letter of the abbot Leo to the kings Hugh and Robert,2 we are informed that " last year (994) Theodorus,3 archbishop of Egypt, and Horestus of Jerusalem, sent legates to ask the Pope whether converts from Jacobitism might be received into the clerical state, and whether, as they could not, for fear of the Saracens, consecrate an altar in every church, they might consecrate some linen (pannum) to serve the same purpose."

Though much of our knowledge, then, of John's relations

1 Bielowski, Mon. Polonicc hist., i., 148, from Cencius Camerarius (or Deusdedit) ; Liber Censuum, i., p. 349, n. 17, and p. 358.

2 Cf. supra, p. 366.

3 Theodorus was, no doubt, the same as Philotheus, who was also known as Theophilus, etc. — see Neale's Patriarchate of Alex., ii., p. 192 and n. — and Horestus is the same as Jeremiah, who also bore the name of Orestes. The fact that Orestes was already patriarch of Jerusalem in 994 might be noted in a future edition of Gams, Series Epp. Unfortunately nothing more is known about the embassy of the Oriental patriarchs. The request to be allowed to say Mass on a piece of consecrated linen shows that the Saracens drove the Catholic clergy of Egypt in the tenth century to the same straits as the penal laws of Protestant England drove them in this country after the sixteenth century. (The letter of Leo, ap. CEuvres de Gerbert, ed. Ollcris, p. 242, and ep. 113 of Gerbert, show questions of divorce taken to Rome.)

JOHN XV. 385

with distant peoples is often very meagre, it is extensive enough to enable us to see that the essentially partisan invective of Arnulf of Orleans, of which enough has already been said,1 is not in accordance with fact.

The pontificate of John XV. is memorable also from the Canonisa- fact that, as far as is known with any degree of certainty, it is in his reign that we find the first example of solemn canonisation by a Pope.2 It is generally stated that Alexander III. (11 59-1 181) was the Pope who first re- served to the Holy See the right of enrolling holy people after their death in the catalogue of the saints, and in proof thereof is quoted a bull which he issued at Anagni (Febru- ary 7, 1 161) regarding the canonisation of our St. Edward the Confessor.3 An examination of the bull, however, shows that in it, at least, he did nothing of the kind. It simply says, in the only passage that has any bearing on the subject, that the Pope will do himself what is not wont to be done except by solemn councils, viz. canonise King Edward.4 Perhaps, however, it may be safely argued that the manner in which "the Church of the English, which was most especially devoted to the Roman See,"5 in the person of its bishops

1 Supra, p. 356 ff.

2 Hence this bull of John is the first one printed by Fontanini in his Codex constitutionum quas SS. PP. edid. in solemni canoniz. SS., Rome, 1729. "Luitoldus episcopus Romam ivit, per P. Johannem b. Oudalrici sanctitas probatur. Solemnitas conlaudatur et sancitur." Ann. Augustani, an. 993 ap. M. G. SS., iii.

3 Cf. Lingard, A.-Sax. Ch., ii. 81 n, quoting Bullarium, i. 67 ; and especially Wouters, Dissertat. in selecta H. E. capita, diss. 41.

4 Negotium tarn arduum et sublime, non frequenter soleat nisi in solemnibus conciliis de more concedi." Bullar., i. 67, ed. Cherubini. In Fontanini's version of the bull {I.e. p. 15), the word nisi has acci- dentally been omitted.

5 So speaks Bishop Nigellus of Ely to Pope Alexander III. in his letter to him on this subject : " Et praecipue Sedi romanae devotissima anglorum ecclesia." Ap. Liverani, Spicilegium Liberianum, p. 749 ; Florence, 1864. Cf. the letter to Alexander III. of William, bishop of Norwich ("regem mirificum in sanctorum cathalago conscribi et

VOL. IV. 25

386 JOHN XV.

and abbots, begged Pope Alexander III. to enrol King Edward in the catalogue of the saints, is enough to prove that by his time that important act could only be done by the Holy See. This is borne out by the story of Abbot Nordpert's obtaining from Clement II. the canonisation of blessed Wiborada,1 and by a fragment of a decree of Alexander III. (i 170) in which he forbids public venera- tion of a person as a saint without the authority of the Roman Church.2 It would seem, then, that the practice of canonisation came gradually and naturally to be left solely in the hands of the Popes, who, by degrees, regu- lated its whole process.

In the early days of the Church popular acclamation seems not unfrequently to have been the vox Dei in declar- ing who were to be honoured as saints. In the eighth and ninth centuries this practice was forbidden by various councils,3 and the power of canonising was reserved to the bishops. From the time when the right of solemnly add-

consignari faciatis"), M.t p. 675, and a whole series of others to the like effect ; ft, pp. 677, 679, 753, 755. Roger, archbishop of York, would have the Pope grant the request " for the honour of the Roman Church, which in his life King Edward honoured more than any other king of his time," p. 755.

1 Contin. II. Casuum S. Galli, n. 6, ap. M.G.SS., ii. "Obtinuit .... apud D. Apost. Clementem .... quatinus ipsam canonizaret et pro sancta haberi preciperet."

2 " Ilium ergo hominem non praesumatis de cetero colere, quum etiamsi per eum miracula plurima fierent, non liceret vobis ipsum pro sancto absque auctoritate Romanac ecclesiae publice venerari." Cf. Corpus juris, canon., Decretals of Gregory IX., 1. iii., tit. 45, c. 1, de rcL et vcn. SS., i. ; "Audivimus quod," vol. ii. p. 650, ed. Friedberg, Lipsiae, 1881 ; Jaffe, 13546(9260).

3 Cf. can. 42 of the synod of Frankfort in 794; and n. 17 of a capitulary of Charlemagne (44, ap. Boretius, i. 122), " De ecclesiis seu Sanctis noviter sine auctoritate inventis, nisi episcopo probante minime venerentur." In fact, Wouters, I.e., has shown that from the earliest times worship paid to any one as a saint was regulated by the ecclesiastical authorities.

JOHN XV. 387

ing to the catalogue of the saints was reserved to the Pope, whenever that was, the examination into the life of the person who is proposed for canonisation has become more and more searching. Indeed, so close is the investigation that it has become a matter of wonder to non-Catholics that such solid proofs of virtue and miraculous power are exacted before a bull of canonisation is issued by the supreme Pontiff.

It was in the year 993 that, after a careful examina- tion into the life of Ulrich, bishop of Augsburg (|973), John XV., " servant of the servants of God," announced * to " all the archbishops, bishops, and abbots of Gaul and Ger- many " that, on the motion of Luitolf, bishop of Augsburg, before a council in the Lateran palace, it was decreed that the memory of the holy Bishop Ulrich be venerated with pious devotion, because " we adore and worship the relics of martyrs and confessors, that we may adore Him whose martyrs and confessors they are. We honour the servants that the honour may redound to the Lord, who said : • He that receiveth you, receiveth me'(S. Matt, x. 40). And so we, who cannot rely on our own merits, may be continu- ally helped by their prayers before the throne of God." The decree is witnessed by five other bishops besides the Pope, and by various cardinal priests and deacons.

In one of the catalogues it is stated that John " decorated John decor-

n tcs 3.n

with paintings the oratory of Our Lady ' in Gradibus/ " oratory of afterwards known as "in Tuny."2 It had been built ur a y' originally by Paul I.8 at the base of the tower erected by his brother Stephen (II.) III., which from this very oratory came to be known as the tower of Our Lady " ad Grada." The tower formed part of the quadriporticus which surrounded the atrium in front of the old St. Peter's.

1 Ep. 12, February 3, 993.

2 Ann. Romam, an. 11 11, ap. L. P., ii. 339. 3 L. P., i. pp. 465, 7.

388

JOHN XV.

Death of John. 996.

When, centuries later, the portico was pulled down, the bright imperishable mosaics of Paul I., still bearing his name, were seen and described by the antiquarians of the time.

It was at the end of March or at the beginning of April 996 that a violent fever caused John XV. to give up " his body to the earth and his soul to heaven " ; l or, as a later author (Amalricus Augerius) 2 expresses it, " After many labours and much pain of body, John departed to the Lord, and was by clergy and people honourably buried in Rome."

1 John Canaparius, in vit. S. Adalbert., c. 21.

2 Ap. R. I. SS., Hi., pt. ii. No coin of John XV. has come down to us ; and the epitaph assigned to him by some authors does not, it would seem, really belong to him. Both Platina and Fleury, it may be noted, have made many mistakes in their accounts of John XV.

John XV. (?). (After the Register of Tivoli.)

GREGORY V.

A.D. 996-999.

Sources. — Some twenty-two letters, privileges, etc., of Gregory, ap. P. Z., t. 137.

We shall henceforth have occasion to quote somewhat frequently the Historiarum Libri V. (900-1044), ed. Prou (Paris, 1886), of the Burgundian monk Raoul Glaber or the Bald. Born towards the close of the tenth century, the young Raoul gave early proofs of an unsteady character. To wean him from his attachment to the world, a well-meaning but not over-discerning uncle caused him to enter a monastery. He passed much of his life in wandering from one monastery to another. Expelled from one, his literary tastes secured him admittance into another. At length he fell under the influence of St. William of Dijon and Odilo of Cluny. Acting under their advice, he devoted himself to literature, and produced his History. Though full of in- accuracies, gossip, and miraculous legends, it contains material not found elsewhere, and gives us an animated picture of the times. Gebhart, in his Moines et papes, which is a series of "essais de Psychologie Historique," has a paper, very psycho- logical of course, on Raoul, and characterises his History as " the evocation of a bad dream" (p. 32). The year of Raoul's death is unknown.

A very striking figure in the history of Italy, of Southern Italy especially, during the tenth century was the renowned Basilian monk, St. Nilus. This Italian-Greek, born about 910, did not die till 1005. The Saracen troubles in Southern Italy caused him

3*9

390 GREGORY V.

to wander from place to place; and wherever he went he was revered and beloved by high and low. He died in the famous abbey of Grottaferrata, which he had himself founded. His Life written in Greek (ap. Migne, in Greek and Latin, P. G. L., t. 120 ; in Latin only, P. G., t. 61 ; or ap. Acta SS., September, t. vii.), probably by his disciple Bartholomew1 (11065), "1S tne om*y document which gives us any insight into the life of the southern provinces of Italy at the epoch of the Byzantine domination and the Saracen inroads. Its historical importance is of the highest.'' An analysis of it is given by Lenormant (La Grande Grhe% i., p. 341 f.) from whom this quotation is taken.

In 1892 Sakkelion published in the Sotir,2 a journal of Constantinople, a series of previously inedited letters in Greek of a certain Leo. He was one of the ambassadors whom Basil II. made use of to conduct the negotiations concerning the proposed marriage between Otho III. and a daughter of Constantine VIII. In Italy more than once, he was at Rome when Philagathus, of whom he always speaks with horror and contempt, was tortured and degraded. Hence his letter on the subject to his brother, which we shall cite in its proper connection from Schlumberger 3 (from whom we have gathered these facts), is an authority of the first order.

The march Compelled by the violence of Crescentius Numentanus,

^6. ' John XV., had, as we have already seen,4 not long before

his death, turned to the youthful Otho III. for help. As

soon as the German monarch had arranged terms of peace

with the Slavs, he crossed the Alps in the spring (996)

1 His Life was in turn written by a contemporary, the abbot Luke, who died twenty years after him. Cf the rare work (printed at Rome in 1728) of Dom Giacomo Sciommari, himself a monk of Grottaferrata, Note .... alia vita . . . . diS. Bartolomeo .... tradotta da un atitico Codice Greco. Luke's Life was first edited in the original Greek by Cardinal Mai (Nova Pat. Bib., vi.) ; a Latin version of this edition may be read, ap. Migne, P. G. (Latin only), t. 65. Cf. Bartholomew's Greek Life ; Rocchi's Vita di San Ni/o (Roma, 1904) is an Italian translation.

2 T. xv., 1892. ■ L\<pop<!e byzantin, ii. 282 n. 4 Supra, p. 350.

GREGORY V. 39 1

with a large army and, "long desired,"1 entered Italy. After celebrating Easter (April 12) at Pavia, he advanced to Ravenna.

He was there met by envoys from Rome with letters Otho from " the Roman nobles and the senatorial order." SSapUin8 They informed him of the death of John, and expressed pfpacy. their sense of the great loss they had all therein sustained. Otho himself, they declared, they were loyally anxious to see in Rome ; and they would be glad if he would let them know whom he would wish them to elect in place of John.2 The king at once suggested the name of one of his chaplains, the youthful Bruno, son of the duke of Car- inthia. Through his grandmother Liutgarda, who was the daughter of Otho I., the young ecclesiastic was a relation of his sovereign. Though not five-and-twenty years of age, he was already distinguished for his learning and ability, and, according to the biographer of St. Adalbert, for a hasty disposition more in accordance with his age than his office.3

All present approved of the king's choice. Accordingly, accompanied by Archbishop Willigis of Mayence and Election of Hildebald of Worms, Bruno betook himself to Rome, and 996. was presented to its people as pope-designate. After a most honourable reception, he was duly elected 4 by the Romans and consecrated on May 3. If any Pope could

1 Thietmar, Chron., iv. 18 ; Annalista Saxo, ad an. 996.

8 " Illius adventum .... totis visceribus desiderai-e ac debita fideli- tate pollicitantur expectare. . . . Et quern pro eo (John XV.) ponerent regalem exquirunt sentenciam." Vit. S. Adalbert., c. 21.

3 " Magnae .... indolis, sed, quod minus bonum, multum fervidae juventutis." lb. His relationship to Otho III. can well be seen in Tout's {The Empire and the Papacy, p. 65) genealogical table of the Saxon and Salian emperors.

4 "Publico consensu et electione fecit (Otto) ordinari Apostolicum .... Brunonem." Ann. Saxo, following the Annal. Hildesh., " In loco Johannis .... cum omnium laude presentium (Brunonem Otto) statuit." Thietmar, I.e. " Cleri et omnium RR. unanimi voto .... electum," Ann. Quedlinburj, 996, ap. M. G. SS., iii.

392 GREGORY V.

have contented that ungrateful, cowardly self-seeker, Crescentius Numentanus, whom Gregorovius chooses to consider " a brave man " and " a patriotic Roman," l Bruno would have done. He was of the best blood of Germany, rich, handsome, and learned.2 His father was Otho, duke of Carinthia and marquis of Verona ; his mother's name was Judith. The emperor, Conrad II., the Salic, was his nephew.3 His grandfather, Conrad the Red, duke of Lorraine, who had married Liutgarda, the daughter of Otho 1., had died gloriously in the battle by the Lech (955), where the power of the terrible Hungarians had been effectually broken. He gave practical proof of the learn- ing he had acquired in his native city of Worms 4 when he instructed the people in German, Italian,5 or Latin as the case might be. But Gregory had not merely the " sounding brass or the tinkling cymbal" of an eloquent tongue, he had the charity which covereth a multitude of sins. Of this twelve poor men (numero cautus apostolicd), who every Saturday received a present of clothes from him, were witnesses. In a word, this first German who ever sat on the chair of Peter was, like the rest of his countrymen who were to come after him in the middle of the next century, an honour to his king and country, and certainly more worthy of the Papacy than not a few of those whom the nobility of Rome had forced into the Roman See.

1 Rome, iii. 419. Muratori, Annal., ad ann. 997, properly designates him "un mal uomo, un uomo acciecato dall' ambizione."

2 See his epitaph at the end of this biography.

3 Catal. Zwetlcnsis, ap. Watterich, i. 688. Cf. Wipo, Ges/a Chuonradi, ed. Bresslau, p. 12 ; Otho III. himself, writing to Gregory, says : " Non solum sanguinis linca, verum etiam inter cunctos mortales quadam sui generis eminentia connectimur." Inter epp. Gerberti, ep. 213, ed. Ha vet.

4 " Lingua Teutonicus Vvangia (Vormazia) doctus in urbe." Epitaph. 6 " Vulgari voce," i.e. in the Low Latin which was now becoming the

Italian language.

GREGORY V. 393

The election of Gregory, " illustrious not only by the General nobility of his birth, but by the uprightness of his character," £<£?** as Aimoin1 puts it, gave the greatest consolation to good Grego^v. men who were anxious for the uplifting of the Church. Abbo, the famous abbot of Fleury, whose learning and virtue mark him out as one of the most distinguished men of his age, gave expression to this feeling in a letter 2 which he wrote to his friend Leo, abbot of St. Boniface's in Rome, and, as we have seen, a man of great learning and piety himself: "I have just heard a piece of news which has rejoiced me more than gold or the topaz ; viz. that the dignity of the Apostolic See (apostolicum decus) has been raised by (the election of) a man of the imperial family and full of virtue and wisdom. . . . May the same Holy Spirit who inspired St. Gregory I. with all learning inspire the present venerable pontiff of the same holy Roman Church, and grant that you may be to him a most accept-

1 The disciple and biographer of abbot Abbo of Fleury (-f-1004), in vit. Abbo., c. 11, ap. P. L., t. 139.

2 Ep. 15, ap. ib., p. 459. Abbo was brought over to England to help to raise the standard of studies in our island. Among his other works was a Collectio Canomcm. In c. 5, I.e., p. 479, he lays down that, by the will of Christ, the authority of the Roman See extends over the whole Church, as the Popes are vicegerents of St. Peter, the Prince of the whole Church. " Romanse et apost. sedis auctoritas Christo D. propitiante refulget per universalem totius orbis Ecclesiam. Nee mirum, cum ejusdem sedis pontifices b. Petri, qui princeps est totius Ecclesiae, videantur vices gerere." And in a letter (ep. 5) to the monks of S. Martin he declares : " The Roman Church by its excellence has this privilege above all churches that, as the key-bearer of the kingdom of heaven obtained the chief place among the apostles (principatum apostolici culminis), so the Roman Church gives authority to all its members throughout the four quarters of the globe. Hence, what else does he do who opposes the Roman Church but withdraw himself from its society and take his stand with the enemies of Christ? . . . Never, then, let it be that the prejudices of moderns should be able to with- stand the writings of the saints, and especially of the Roman pontiffs of old, nor that the opinion of to-day should hold of slight account those whose memories are revered. For if later generations despise the

394 GREGORY V.

able secretary to work for the reinvigoration of the apostolic

authority."

Coronation Scarcely was Gregory seated on the throne of the Fisher-

ofOtho J & J

in., 996. man than the youthful Otho arrived in Rome to receive

the imperial crown at the hands of his young cousin.1 In

the presence of his mother and grandmother, of the Roman

nobility, now all submission, and of a great number of his

own countrymen, Otho was duly crowned by the Pope, and

at fifteen years of age found himself emperor of the Romans

and " advocate of the Church of S. Peter " (May 21).2

Crescentius Before Otho left Rome, not only was he engaged with

before a , J b &

synod. the Pope in granting privileges to monasteries — for both of them had great faith in the Cluniac foundations as centres of civilisation — but on May 25 he held a synod with him "to settle various ecclesiastical matters."3 Among the affairs treated of by this assembly was the unsatisfactory state of things in the Church of Rheims. It was perhaps at this council that Gregory ordered the restoration of Arnulf to his archiepiscopal see. At any rate, in a charter of privilege, soon to be cited, the Pope brands Gerbert as an intruder. The occasion of this grant was a request put forward by Herluin that the Pope would consecrate him

dictates of their ancestors to which they ought to yield assent, there is nothing left but for lead to swim on the waves, and for wood to lie gaping beneath them ! " Words such as these show that whatever effect was produced in weaker minds by the disorderly conduct of some of those who, in this age, occupied the chair of Peter, the teachers and thinkers of the tenth century were well able to distinguish between Peter and his office, and did not suffer in their faith from the sight of the sins of any of Peter's successors.

1 Otto "causa scandendi oilmen imperii, ut mos est a Magno Carolo regum Francorum, multo comitatu Romam intravit, optatum diu caput Latime terne ostendit, quasi post Deum secunda justitia veniat." Bruno's Life of S. Adalbert, c. 18, ap. M. G. SS.} iv., p. 604.

2 " Unctionem imperialem percepit, et advocatus ecclesirc S. Petri efficitur." Thiet., iv., c. 18. Cf. the other chronicles already cited.

3 Jaffe, sub 3863 (2955).

GREGORY V. 395

bishop. He had been elected bishop of Cambrai; but, owing to the troubles between Arnulf1 and Gerbert, he had not been able to get consecrated. He also complained to the Pope of the manner in which the temporalities of his see had been plundered. Gregory not only consecrated Herluin, but addressed a bull to him in which he certified that fact, and forbade, under pain of excommunication, any noble to dare in the future to interfere with the property of the See of Cambrai, or, on the death of bishop or priest of that diocese, to plunder the goods they might chance to leave behind them.2 The fact that Gregory had no hesitation in denouncing the emperor's favourite as an intruder shows his love of justice and his independence of character; and that Otho did not demur lets us see the harmony which prevailed between the Church and the State. No wonder this synod was regarded as the begin- ning of a new era, and that men rejoiced to see Pope and emperor uniting in giving laws to the world.3

Before this august assembly the turbulent Crescentius Crescentius was naturally summoned. The youthful emperor very aSd Otho' wisely wished that the rebel should be banished. But the Rome, feelings of the Pope, paternal no doubt but mistaken, led him to beg for mercy for the worthless noble.4 He un- fortunately obtained his request. Crescentius returned to his liberty and to his plots, while Otho marched north to Germany (June).

No sooner had Otho turned his back on Rome than

1 Cf. supra, p. 351 ff.

2 Ep. 2, p. 904. Cf. Gesta Po7it. Camerac, t. i., c. ill, ap. M. G. SS.t vii., or P. L., t. 149.

3 " Laetantur cum primatibus minores civitatis .... quia novus imperator dat jura populis, dat jura novus papa." Vit. S. Adalbert., c. 21.

4 " Sed ad preces novi apostolici imperator omnia remisit." Annal, Hildesh., an. 996.

396 GREGORY y.

Gregory felt that his leniency towards Crescentius had been a mistake. He was soon made to feel that the pardoned noble had a great deal of power in the city, and that his fidelity could not be relied on. Conscious that his own influence among his new subjects was not enough to enable him to cope with Crescentius, should that unruly spirit again aspire to supreme power, and full of apprehension that such was indeed his intention, the Pope begged Otho to return to Rome at once. In reply 1 the emperor expressed his grief that he could not do as his affection for his friend strongly inclined him. The climate was really more than he could endure. But he would be with the Pope in spirit. To encourage Gregory, Otho reminded him that he had commissioned the great ones of Italy {primores Italice), such as Hugh the Great (marquis of Tuscany from 970 to about 1001), who was the emperor's devoted adherent, and the count of Spoleto and Camerino, to be at once the Pope's consolation and protection, rescemius Gregory had not misread the political situation ; his fbeSion, fears were soon realised. But a few months elapsed after 57 the departure of Otho ere Crescentius was again in arms.

He would have no master if he could help it. He worked upon the feelings of u the Romans," i.e. of his own party, by reminding them of the way in which Otho had dictated to them.*2 Gregory, though he seems to have dreaded it,

1 Ep. 216, among the letters of Gerbert : "Naturae necessitas suo jure omnia constringens, qualitates Italic! eeris qualitatibus mei corporis quadam sui generis contrarietate opponit."

2 " De isto (Gregorio) qualiter a Romanis, imperatori rebellantibus, primo expulsus sit." Cf. the additions by Rupert (tii35), abbot of Tuy, to Lantbert's (tio69) Life of Archbishop Heribert of Cologne (tio2i), ap. M. G. SS.y iv. "Cui (the Pope) rebellans Crescentius," says the more or less contemporary catalogue known as Eccards (ap. Ecc, Corpus, ii. 1640) or as of Augsburg. Cf. L. P., ii., p. xv., and Watterich, i., p. xv. Ademar of Chabannes, who was a boy when these events were in progress, speaks of Crescentius endeavouring to snatch

GREGORY V. 397

was not prepared for such perfidy and ingratitude as were manifested by John Crescentius. Like the rest of the Popes for many a century, he took no effective measures for keeping in check the unbridled ambition of the more powerful of the nobility. He neglected to prepare those means of forcible repression which even a father of a family — much more a ruler of a state — must have at hand to be used in case of need. He was forced to fly from the city destitute of everything.1 This took place apparently in the early part of 997.

Expelled from Rome, Gregory made his way to Pavia, The synod where he had ordered a synod to assemble. He wished to 997.^ discuss other important matters as well as the usurpation of Crescentius. There were grave troubles in France. Gerbert had been to him to plead his cause in his own person before the supreme judge in the Church.2 And news had reached Gregory that King Robert, setting at defiance both the laws of the Church and the advice of

the imperial power out of the hands of Otho : " cum contra Hotonem imperium Romanum vellet (Crescentius) arripere." Chron., iii. 31. It will be noticed that in all these contemporary authorities there is not the slightest hint that Crescentius was a patriot of any sort. Authors, who wrote when the passions roused by these transactions had had time to cool down, agree with their predecessors in representing Crescentius as a man who was simply striving for power for himself. And so Bonizo of Sutri ("f-1091) speaks of Crescentius as "urbis Romae capitaneus, qui sibi inane nomen patriciatus vendicaverat, assumens tyrannidem, Papam .... expulit." Lib. ad Amicum, 1. iv., ap. Jaffe, Mon. Gregor. ; cf. his Libri decret., 1. vi., ap. Mai, Nova Pat. Bib., pt. iii., p. 45, 6.

1 " Crescentius d. apostolicum, nudum omnium rerum, Urbe expulit." Annal. Hild., an. 996. According to the Annals of Quedlinburg, ad. an. 997, ap. M. G. SS., iii., Crescentius seized the city whilst Gregory happened to be absent from it.

2 " Gerbertus Romam ratiocinaturus vadit, ac ibi ratione papas data, cum nullus accusaret, alia sinodus indicitur." Richer, Hist., 1. iv., sub fin. It is thought that Gerbert came to Rome in the train of Otho.

398 GREGORY V.

the wise,1 had married Bertha, who was his second cousin, and moreover spiritually related to him as well.2 For he had been godfather to a child of Bertha by a former husband whose death he had contrived to bring about. Robert had married Bertha immediately after the demise of Hugh Capet, his father (f October 996).

When, towards the middle of the year 997, the synod which Gregory had summoned met at Pavia,3 the first question to which the assembly addressed itself was the case of Gerbert. Here again things did not turn out favourably for the would-be occupant of the See of Rheims. The bishops who had taken part in the deposition of Arnulf, and who, though summoned to the synod, had not taken the trouble to be properly represented at it, were suspended from their office, whereas those who had been deposed without " the apostolical authority " were declared "to remain innocent."

It was next decreed that King Robert, who, "despite the apostolical prohibition," had married a relation, should, along with the bishops who had consented to his marriage, give satisfaction to the Pope. Excommunication was to be the result of refusal.

The doings of Crescentius, who, as we shall see presently, had meanwhile caused an antipope to be elected, were of course discussed by the council. In view of the election of the antipope, it was decreed that any cleric who, whilst the

1 E.g. of Gerbert, " Berta Roberto nubere volens Gerbertum con- sulit ac ab eo confutatur." Richer, I.e.

- Cf. Etudes sur le regne de Robert le Pieux, by Pfister (Paris, 1885),

p. 49-

3 A metrical inscription sets forth that Gregory —

"Forte Ticinensem qui tunc pergebat ad urbem, Concilii sacri causam habiturus ibi — "

consecrated the Church of St. Prosper at Pavia on January 24 (997), ap. Jafife, sub 3872 (2961).

GREGORY V. 399

Pope was safe and sound, should take any steps without his knowledge for the election of a new pontiff, should be de- prived of his dignity, excommunicated, and anathematised. Crescentius himself, " the disturber {invasor et deprccdator) of the holy Roman Church," was excommunicated. The decrees of this synod, signed by thirteen bishops, are known to us through a letter x which the Pope addressed to " our vicar" Willigis of Mayence, in which he asked him to secure the adhesion to them of the bishops subject to him.

The action of the synod of Pavia came as a rude shock Robert and to Robert, who, at this period at any rate, had no right to the title of " the Pious " which history has awarded him. Wishing to retain the object of his affections, and at the same time to avoid excommunication, he determined to try if submission in one particular would enable him to avoid it in another. Arnulf of Rheims, who had been deprived of his see "without a fair trial," according to the biographer of Abbo,2 was still languishing in prison. Decrees of Popes and councils in his favour had up to this availed him nothing. King Robert, however, now sent Abbo of Fleury to the Pope, who had meanwhile threatened to anathematise the whole kingdom of the Franks on account of the treatment of Arnulf.3 The abbot found his task a heavy one. The food and drink of foreign climes, especi- ally of old England, had had the effect of making the saint decidedly stout.4 But the weight of his body did not in

1 P. L., eP. 9.

2 Arnulfus " Remorum archiepiscopus .... absque justa audientia sede sua privatus custodiaeque fuerat mancipatus." Vit. Abbonis> c. II.

3 "Toti regno Francorum anathema se invecturum comminatus est." lb.

4 " Et quamvis mole corporis gravaretur (nam, in transmarinis regionibus peregrinorum ciborum inusitata qualitas decoctseque potionis haustus corpus ejus pingue reddiderat) nequaquam tamen labore fatigabatur." lb.

400 GREGORY V.

his case drag down the aspirations of his soul. Eager for peace, he faced difficulties of every kind in his efforts to find him " whom report had represented as the one to look to for the restoration of the standard of religious life."1 When he reached Rome in the autumn of 997, he only found a figment of a Pope, the creature of the tyrant Crescentius. It was not to speak to such a man that Abbo had toiled many a heavy mile. It was the true Pope he wished to see. He had no desire to look upon Rome "subject to usurpers' rule" (that of Crescentius and his antipope); it was to approach "the fifth Gregory, the world's watchman " that " on his knees " he had crossed the mighty Alps.2 He must, then, find Gregory. Again, therefore, through many a deep and dusky vale, o'er many a rugged mountain — " per concava vallium, per praerupta montium investigans — he dragged his weary body. At length, in the district of Spoleto, " the two lights of the Church" met, and embraced each other. After the Pope had duly blessed him, he let the saint know how glad he was to see such an ardent champion of the Church and of truth. He had heard, he continued, of his learning, and knew that no claims of friendship whatsoever would make him swerve from the right path. He had long desired to see and to converse with him both on sacred and on profane subjects. It will be for you to ask, said Gregory, and for me to grant. For I know that you will not ask for anything I ought not to bestow upon you. Whether the Pope spoke in this way to prevent Abbo from pleading for Robert cannot be determined, as the saint's biographer says nothing definitely about any negotiations on the king's behalf. He tells us, however, that for eight days the pontiff kept Abbo by his side, and granted him all the

1 L.c.

■ See Abbo's verses at the end of his fourth letter.

GREGORY V. 4OI

favours he had come to beg for. One of these was a charter of privilege for his monastery. And so far was the Pope, says the saint's disciple, from wishing to extract any profit for himself out of his favours, that he made the abbot a present of vestments and other things used at Mass.1 We are told that among the other privileges conferred by this charter was exemption from episcopal visitation. Moreover, if the whole of Gaul were to be laid under an interdict by the Apostolic See, the charter pro- claimed that it was not to be in the power of any bishop to lay the interdict on the abbey. A copy of this diploma of Gregory has been found comparatively recently, and has been published by Pfister.2 It contains the privileges mentioned by Abbo's biographer and others as well, and concludes with invoking on king or bishop the loss of their dignity, and threatening them with excommunication, if they contravene the papal grant. As the bull is dated November 15, 997, we must conclude that then Gregory was still in or near Spoleto.

Though, to argue from Abbo's letter to Gregory, soon to be cited, it would seem that the saint received from the Pope anything but a promise of any indulgence for Robert in the matter of his marriage, it was, nevertheless, arranged

1 In vit., c. 12. "Quod (privilegium) .... papa tarn favorabiliter largitus est, ut non solum nullum pecuniae quaereret lucrum, verum thymiamate ac planeta, qua inter missarum uteretur solemnia, donatum .... Dei famulum (domum) remiserit." Among the other matters on which the saint spoke to the Pope were the passions ("de passionibus animae loquentes "), ep. Abb. 4, ap. P. L., t. 39.

2 Robert le Pieux, p. lvii. Beneath the glorious porch of the old romanesque church of S. Benoit-sur-Loire may be read a long list of the names of papal benefactors of the great monastery of Fleury. Of course that of Gregory V. (997) figures among them. As the Pope had said that he was very curious to know " how the body of Benedict, the lawgiver of monks, had been translated into Gaul," Abbo sent him an account of the matter, and at the same time two embossed Manzerina vases. Cf. ep. Abb. 4.

VOL. IV. 26

402 GREGORY V.

that Arnulf should be released and restored to his see. The abbot was to convey the pallium to the re-established archbishop, and to deliver an unpalatable message to the king. That Abbo faithfully fulfilled his commissions we learn from a letter which he addressed 1 : " To the venerable prelate of the holy Roman and Apostolic See, and hence doctor of the universal Church, Abbo, the rector of Fleury, offers health in Christ." " It often happens," he wrote, " that the full purity of truth is obscured by the words of an unfaithful interpreter. To guard against such a danger, venerable father, I stated your will in terms at once faith- ful and simple, as you bade me. Nor do I fear in the least degree the animosity of the king, since I added nothing (to your words), nor did I diminish, change, or omit anything. Of all this, Arnulf, forgiven and freed from prison, is my witness, to whom I presented the pallium as with your own hands. My witness also is my lord Robert, the illustrious king of the Franks, who, as your spiritual son, has promised to obey you as he would St. Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, whose place on the earth you now hold." In conclusion, while thanking Gregory for the vestments he had given him, Abbo declares he will never forget the Pope in his prayers, and will be ever obedient to him.

As a result of these negotiations, Arnulf (fi02i) was released (November 997) ; but, whatever promises to the contrary Robert may have made, Bertha was not dismissed from his side.2 Accordingly, at a synod held in Rome at

1 Ap. vit. Abbonis, c. 12 ; but in full, ap. P. Z,., t. 139, p. 419. In answering (ep. 12) this letter, Gregory speaks "of the kings promise" ("de regis promissione")— whatever it really was — and asks the abbot for friendship's sake to send him one of his best missals.

2 Gerbert's party at Rheims gave out that this was done by Robert with the connivance of the legate Leo. u Leo Romanus abba ut absolvatur (Arnulf) obtinuit, ob confirmandum senioris mei regis Rot. (Robert) novum conjugium, ut michi a Remensibus per litteras signifi- catum est." Ep. Gerb., 181.

GREGORY V. 403

the close of the year 998 or the beginning of 999, after the re-establishment of Gregory, and when Otho was in the city, it was decided that, unless Robert discarded Bertha, and agreed to do penance for seven years, he was to be anathematised. The same penalty was decreed against Bertha; and the bishops who had assisted at the illegal wedding were declared excommunicated till such times as they came to Rome in a spirit of repentance.1 The first signature to these decrees after the Pope's was that of Gerbert, now archbishop of Ravenna, and formerly Robert's master.

For some time the king braved the condemnation of the Robert Church — at least so says Pfister. But it is by no means Bertha, easy, at the period of which we are now treating, to give either accurate facts as to Robert's deeds or precise dates to them. Relying on a diploma2 in which the king is said to have acted u at the request of his dear wife Bertha," the last-named author believes that on October 26,999, Robert had certainly not taken any heed of the Pope's anathema. On the other hand, he thinks it clear that by September 1 OO 1 Bertha had lost her position as queen, and that before August 25, 1003, Robert had married Constance. Very few certain indications with regard to the chronology of the close of the tenth century can, however, be extracted from the charters of King Robert. The notes of time attached to them are so corrupt or so complicated that Pfister himself, who has devoted a close study to them, has declared that " each diploma must be examined separately, and above all with the greatest prudence and even with a certain amount of timidity." 3 And so in the case of the

1 Cann. 1 and 2, ap. Labbe, ix., p. 772.

2 Robert le Pzeuxi p. lxvi., No. 18, where there is a misprint of 998 for 999, and p. 57.

3 lb., p. xliv. The diploma in question is dated thus : u Data vii. Kal. Novembris, Indictione xii., anno xii. regnante Roberto." Sir H.

404 GREGORY V.

document under discussion, we should get the year 998 if the indiction given (viz. the twelfth) be supposed to have begun in September. Besides, should the date 999 be accepted, it is necessary to reject a letter1 which purports to have been written by Gregory V. (November 998) to Constance, queen of the Gauls (Galliarum), and to assert that a signature of Constance to a diploma, signed also by King Robert, " must have been added afterwards." 2

At any rate, certain it is that Robert repented sooner or later. " David and Robert," says the latter's panegyrist,* " after the manner of kings, sinned ; but, touched by God, they repented and bewailed their sins with their tears, which is not in accordance with the usual habit of kings." It is also certain that he went to Rome, in company with the bishops who had supported him in his opposition to the laws of the Church, and with them expressed his sorrow for his conduct, and accepted the penance which was im- posed upon him.4 During the absence of the king, Constance had much to suffer from Bertha, who, owing to the encouragement she received " from certain courtiers," says Odorannus in his Chronicle (sub an. 103 1), hoped for a fresh and, this time, for a favourable decision from Rome. Her disappointment when, on Robert's return, she found

Nicolas observes {The Chronology of Hist., p. 7), "Under the third race (of French monarchs, which began with Hugh Capet) great variation prevailed in using the Indiction."

1 Ep. 19, P. Z., p. 934.

1 Cf diploma 19, ap. Pfister, p. lxvii.

1 Helgaud, a natural son of Hugh Capet, and a monk of Fleury, in vita Rob., ap. P. Z., t. 142.

4 This we learn from a fragment of a letter of Leo IX. to Henry, Robert's son, preserved by Ivo of Chartres. Cf. Jaflfe, 4307 (3270). " Robertus (cum episcopis regni) .... excommunicato post ad sedem aspostolicam venientes cum satisfactione, sumpta pcenitentia, redierunt ad propria." When this journey took place we are not prepared to say. Perhaps not before c. 1010, as Pfister holds (p. 68) that it was about that time that Robert first went to Rome.

GREGORY V. 405

him "more devoted to Constance than before," may be imagined.

If it be the fact that Robert did not submit immediately, we are driven to ask what was the cause of his ultimate obedience. Following the testimony of St. Peter Damian and a fragment of an ancient chronicle, we should say it was on account of the disagreeable consequences which his personal excommunication and an interdict on his kingdom entailed upon him. Damian asserts l that Robert was abandoned by everybody except two servants who remained to prepare his food, and that even they after- wards threw into the fire the vessels from which he had eaten and drunk. It is a fragment of a history of the Franks2 which states that the whole of Francia was laid under an interdict by the Pope. But, because the saint goes on to assure us that Bertha was the mother of a monstrosity which had the head and neck of a goose, and because the fragment is crammed full of legends, the evidence of both the one and the other is discounted by some authors. But when we reflect on the treatment which excommunication brought upon Gerbert,3 there would seem to be no reason to call in question the accuracy of Damian's statement, so far, at least, as it registers the fact that the king was shunned by many. And as it is known with certainty that Gregory had threatened to lay the whole country under an interdict, and that Abbot Abbo took measures to prevent the impending evil from affecting his monastery, we may well believe that it actually did fall on the land of Francia.

However all this may be, certain it is, as we have said,

1 Ep. ii. 15, ad. Desid. Cass., which, ap. P. Z., t. 145, is printed as Opusculum 34. Cf. c. 6.

2 " Gregorius totam Franciam anathemate percussit," ap. Bouquet, Recneil des hist, de France, x. 211.

3 V. supra, p. 368.

406 GREGORY V.

that Robert repudiated Bertha, became reconciled to the Holy See, and married Constance.1 Gerbert, The affair of Robert of France has not allowed us to lose

archbishop . .

ofRavenna. sight of Gerbert of Rheims. Sacrificed, as he believed, by- King Robert for Bertha, and abandoned as excommunicated by his own partisans, Gerbert finally left France, somewhere about the month of May 997, and betook himself to the court of the youthful Emperor Otho III.2 Though received with open arms by that powerful and enlightened sovereign,

1 It seems curious that there should be men who would endeavour to criticise adversely the action of Pope Gregory regarding the marriage of King Robert. Yet we read in this connection that : " The Church punished the weak and friendly, while she let the strong and hostile escape. In Robert she had a devout friend : his father with the bishops had resisted Rome ; he, to appease the Pope, alienated the national Church party, and lost the wife he loved." Hist, of France, by Dean Kitchin, i. 201. No doubt there are strong kings and weak kings, but to beard a king can seldom be considered a trifling operation. Besides, Robert was not quite the weakling Dean Kitchin would seem to imagine. Cf Hist. gtndrale, by Lavisse and Rambaud, i. 515 : " Recents travaux nous obligent a dire, avec Richer, qu'il excellait aussi dans les choses de la guerre et ne manquait pas d'activite."

" Lost the wife he loved." What would be the state of the world if every man could have to wife the women he loved? It need hardly be pointed out that daily experience proves the evil of marriages between relations. All honour, then, to the Pope who made a king conform to those laws of the Church which are so eminently calculated to preserve the purity of our race. Clergymen of the national Church of England find no difficulty in discovering prototypes in an age when not even nations, still less national churches, had ever been imagined. Cf Mr Bryce, The Holy Roman Empire, p. 91 : "The whole fabric of medieval Christianity rested upon the idea of the Visible Church. Such a Church could be nowise local or limited. To acquiesce in the establishment of National Churches would have appeared to those men, as it must always appear when scrutinised, contradictory to the nature of a religious body, opposed to the genius of Christianity, defensible, when capable of defence at all, only as a temporary resource

in the presence of insuperable difficulties Since there were as

yet no nations, the plan (of a National Church) was one which did not and could not present itself."

2 Richer, sub fin. ; Epp. Gerb., 181 f.

GREGORY V. 407

the emperor's influence was not strong enough to preserve the See of Rheims for his favourite. On the contrary, Gerbert's rival Arnulf was, as we have seen, released by King Robert (c. November 997) and recognised as archbishop of Rheims by Gregory. Still, if Otho could not keep his honoured tutor in his French metropolitical see, there was much that he could do for him. He not only bestowed ample domains upon Gerbert,1 but, when the violent doings of Crescentius caused him to set out for Rome towards the close of 997, he took his friend with him. Otho was determined to get some honour from the Pope for the man who had been the faithful adherent of three generations of his family.2 In the early part of the year 998 Gerbert was in Rome with the victorious emperor, and in April he succeeded to the archbishopric of Ravenna, the first see in Italy after that of Rome, and at that time vacant by the abdication (998) of its occupant, John XIII.

The bull by which Gregory conceded to Gerbert the use of the pallium is a very important document. It shows that the confirmation by Otho I. of the donations of Pippin and Charlemagne to the Holy See had not been without effect. Under the powerful protection of the Saxon emperors, the sovereign pontiffs began to recover their temporal juris- diction over the exarchate of Ravenna, which they had lost during the disorders of the earlier part of the tenth century. Owing to a mingling together of points of civil and ecclesi- astical jurisdiction, the bull is unfortunately not particu- larly easy of comprehension. It runs : " Gregory, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to Gerbert, archbishop of the holy Church of Ravenna, and our spiritual son, and through you to all your successors. Moved both by good-

1 Ep. Gerb., 183.

2 Id., 185. " Tribus seculi setatibus, vobis, patri, avo, inter hostes et tela, fidem purissimam exhibui."

408 GREGORY V.

will towards you'and by ancient custom, we have set your fraternity over the Church of Ravenna, and we think it right to bestow upon you the insignia of the prelates of that church, and among them the pallium to be worn just as you know was done by your predecessors. Strive to match the beauty of these corporal adornments by the internal perfections of the soul. To show you the warmth of our regard for you, we are glad gratuitously to bestow upon you, after the death of the empress (mother) Adelaide, the district of the city of Ravenna, with all the coast rights and the privilege of coining money, with the tolls and market dues, and with the walls and gates of the city 1 — all things to the contrary notwithstanding. Also after the death of the empress we grant you and your successors the county of Commacchio, to have and to hold it for ever. We, moreover, confirm to you and your church Xhe privilege we granted to John, your predecessor, which submitted to him the bishoprics of Montefeltre 2 and Cervia (Ficoclum), and the monasteries of St. Thomas the Apostle, and St. Euphemia, martyr, with all their possessions as well in the city of Rimini as in the counties of Pesaro, Rimini, and Montefeltre. To these we add all that your predecessors have held for a hundred years, and of which you, by the mercy of God, are now in peaceful possession, viz. Liga- bizzi and other castelli. And still further to display our paternal regard for you, we confirm, by virtue of the

1 " Donamus tibi districtum Ravennatis urbis, ripam integrant, mone- tam, teloneum, mercatum, muros et omnes portas civitatis." Ep. 14.

1 Now San Leo, S.W. of the republic of San Marino. By a bull (ep. 11) of the preceding year, Gregory not only restored to the jurisdic- tion of the Church of Ravenna the See of Piacenza which, for the benefit of John Philagathus, Pope John XV. had "unjustly" removed from it (" injuste a meo antecessore ablatam "), but, as a compensation, placed under the jurisdiction of Ravenna the See of Montefeltre ("episcopatum Monteferetranum "), with all its belongings, down to its serfs and slaves ("cum famulis utriusque sexus").

GREGORY V. 409

authority of God and of the Prince of the Apostles, the grant of the bishopric of Reggio made to you by the Emperor Otho.1 In fine, we grant you Cesena, all its dependencies, and all hunting rights between it and the sea, so that with full authority you may there manage every- thing."2 After the customary denunciation of anathema against anyone who should dare to contravene this papal privilege, it concluded thus :

" Written by the hand of Peter, notary and scrivener of the Holy Roman Church, in the month of April, the eleventh indiction. Bene valete. Given April 28 by the hand of John, bishop of Albano and librarian 3 of the Holy Apos- tolic See," etc. Gregory had already (January 28, 997) bestowed similar powers on Gerbert's predecessor, John XIII.,4 in order, as he said, that the Church of Ravenna " might not lose even the very name of metropolitan." In the territories which he conceded, the Pope is always careful to add that he grants John and his successors "all judicial power," and proclaims that, apart from the archbishop, no other ecclesiastic may dare to collect any taxes throughout the whole of Emilia and the Pentapolis.5 It was enough for

1 "Auctoritate Dei .... hoc nostro privilegio, praeceptum de Regiensi episcopatu cum omnibus sibi adjacentiis, a venerabile Ottone tibi .... tuis successoribus attributum, confirmamus," etc. Ep. 14.

2 " Jubemus ut . . . . potestative omnia ibi facias et praecipias. " lb.

3 The signature of this same librarian appears in many of Gregory's bulls. The papal library then cannot have been wholly neglected even during this terrible tenth century.

4 Ep. 6. Unfortunately this document has reached us in a mutilated condition.

6 "Denique concedimus . . . . ut ab aliquo sacerdote Ravennae degente, aut ex familia ejusdem S. R. E., per totam ^miliam atque Pentapolim nullum teloneum, atque portaticum, sive squillaticum exigatur." The powers of the nobility in the matter of exacting services from the people were also curtailed by this bull : "Confirmamus .... ut nullus dux, comes, vicecomes, castaldo .... magna parvaque persona prsefatis colonis et residentibus aliquam publicam functionem aut angariam .... exigant." Gregory also gave to the Church of

410 GREGORY V.

Gregory to know that the Church of Ravenna " was destitute of all things " to make him eager to stretch out a helping hand to it. But, of course, had it not been that he felt sure of the support of the strong arm of Otho, he could not have done much to restore either its spiritual or its tem- poral jurisdiction. These bulls anent Ravenna give us a clear insight into what Gregory and Otho could have ac- complished together in the way of curbing the tyrannical petty princes who ground down the people of Italy, and of raising the Church both in spirituals and in temporals. Hence is there the more reason to regret the early demise of these two men — men undoubtedly of no mean order of ability, and of a well-defined strength of character.

We must now look into what was being done in Rome during the absence of the Pope. And to avoid interrupting the narrative of the thrilling drama therein enacted in which Crescentius was the chief performer, a word or two may be prefixed on St. Nilus, who also took part in it, and on the sequence of events which brought about that Greek influence in Italy of which his career was a vivid illustration.

During the palmy days of the Roman Empire, that important position which their famous colonies1 (Magna Gnecia) had given to the Greeks in South Italy well nigh disappeared. With the victories of Belisarius and

Ravenna certain rights of quarrying for stone not only under the earth, but in ancient public buildings no longer in use: "lapides et petras tarn supra terram, quam sub terram, extra opus in publicis .edificiis positas." Ep. 6. The grand buildings of imperial times could not be kept up either in Rome or Ravenna.

1 Chiefly around the gulf of Tarentum, with some cities (Pestum, Cum;t, Neapolis) on the west coast. On "Greece in Italy" read Hist, ami Architectural Sketches, p. 231 f., by E. A. Freeman (London, 1876); and Trinchera in his introduction to his Syllabus Gnrcarum Membranarum (Naples, 1865). The hundreds of documents he gives, many of which bear dates of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, speak for themselves of the survival of Greek influence in South Italy.

GREGORY V. 41 I

Narses, however, Greek influence in the south of the peninsula revived ; and, by the iconoclastic persecutions of Leo III. and his successors, was fanned into vigorous life. The Mahometan invasions of the Eastern-Roman empire, and the edicts of the image-breaking emperors sent thousands of Greeks into the south of Italy; and the forcible transference (732) cf the churches of Calabria and Sicily, from the jurisdiction of the Pope to that of the patriarch of Constantinople,1 was a factor of the first importance in preventing the immigrants from being absorbed by the native population. This tyrannical act of Leo III. gave the Greeks of Italy organisation. The Saracen trouble, which began in the ninth century (813), brought them under the direct jurisdiction of the Greek emperors. After the first descent of the infidels upon Sicily (827), their ravages in South Italy became so extensive that an excellent excuse was thereby given to that energetic warrior Basil the Macedonian for endeavouring to recover the authority of his predecessors in Italy. He availed himself of it (876), and succeeded in so firmly laying the foundations of Greek rule in Southern Italy that it became paramount there till it was overthrown by the Normans at the close of the eleventh century. So far had the Hellenisation of the southern extremity of the peninsula been carried in the tenth century, that our national chronicle could speak of Otho the Third's expedition into "Greek-land."2 In order to strengthen Greek influence, Nicephorus Phocas (963-969) resolved to extend the ascendancy of the Greek Church in Italy. Acting as though the Greek Church were autonomous, he ordered the patriarch of Constanti- nople to raise the bishop of Otranto to the rank of an archbishop, and to make him the metropolitan of Apulia. 1 Cf. vol. i. pt. ii. p. 206 of this work. 2 A.-Sax. C/iron., an. 982.

412 GREGORY V.

Not content with this double usurpation of papal authority, in taking from it new territories, and in modifying the ecclesiastical hierarchy without the authorisation of the Pope, he forbade Latin to be used in any of the Church services in Apulia.1

The result of the continued and varied efforts of the Greek emperors to Hellenise Southern Italy was so successful that, despite the overthrow of their power in the peninsula by the Normans, Greek influence lasted even in Apulia — which is regarded as having been less Hellenised than Calabria — right down to the fifteenth century. In the thirteenth century we find Roger Bacon suggesting that, to increase the knowledge of Greek in this country, " some should journey to Italy, in some portions of which — for example, in Apulia — the clergy and the people were really Greeks," and that the rich, as Bishop Grosseteste had done, should " send to those parts in search of books as well as of persons acquainted with Greek."2 In the same century a papal envoy to Nardo, in the heel of Italy, writes to express his joy at finding himself, as it were, in Greece; and from Crotona, in the toe of Italy, we see the Popes drawing one Greek bishop after another to send as their legates to the emperors of Constantinople.3

In the very last decade of the fourteenth century, Raimondello Orsini built the Church of S. Caterina at Galatina, " because the principal church, St. Peter's, was served according to the Greek rite, and all the priests were Greek, and so was the language, so that those Latins who understood not the Greek tongue could not pray to God in

1 Liutprand, Legat., c. 62. Cf. Brehier, Le schismc oriental du XT sikle, p. 1 1 ; and Parthey, Notitue efiisc, x. 223.

2 Compendium studii fihilosophice, p. 434, cited by Stevenson, Robert Grosseteste, p. 53 f.

:{ Batiffol, LAbbaye de Rossano, pp. xxviii., xxx., etc.

GREGORY V. 413

a language they comprehended."1 The great Benedictine traveller Montfaucon, who when in Italy made careful enquiries about Greek manuscripts, tells us that this difficulty of the different rites was brought to an end by Sixtus IV. (1471-84), who "ordered all to say their office in Latin ; for they endeavoured quite to extinguish the use of the Greek tongue in those parts. Nevertheless in many parts of that kingdom (Naples) the common people speak Greek, but corrupted." 2

Even to this day, writes a modern author, " the peasants about here (Galatina) still speak Greek, with many Italian words intermixed."3 And, "in that part of the Terra d' Otranto called ' II Capo,' the people still speak Greek."4 Another English traveller, writing only a few years ago, tells of some peasants in a mountainous village near Catanzaro, who talk a corrupt Greek, and who are even called Greet by their neighbours.5 But it must be borne in mind that some, if not all, of these Greek -speaking people are descendants of Greeks who fled from Greece before " the unspeakable Turk."

From the sixth century, then, but especially from the eighth to the eleventh century, the remaking of Greece in South Italy went on ; and from Tarentum to Reggium a «

country was formed which was Hellenic in language, manners, religion, and national sentiment.6

It was in the chief town (Roscianum or Rossano) of this s. Nilus. second Magna Grsecia that, towards the beginning of the

1 Janet Ross, The Land of Manfred, p. 229, quoting Mem. Stor. della citta di Galatina, del Dr. B. Papadia.

2 The Travels of Montfaucon, p. 249 (London, 1712).

3 Ross., p. 234. 4 lb., p. 258.

5 Gissing, By the Ionian See, p. 114 (London, 1901).

6 Cf Lenormant, La Grande Grece, who shows (i. p. 196) how the number of Saracen names of places in S. Italy attests the hold those savages had on it.

4 H GREGORY V.

tenth century (910), was born Nicholas, who, as the abbot Nilus, was to be one of the most famous men of his time. With charming naivete' his biographer writes : " I know that everyone is acquainted with Rossano, not only because it is the capital city of Calabria, but because, though the whole province has been laid waste and all its cities brought under the sway of the vile Saracens, it alone has hitherto escaped that disastrous fate." x For some years Rossano beheld Nicholas leading the ordinary married life of one of its first citizens. But the thought of death caused him to conceive a distaste for the world (940). Abandoning his home, he changed his name and his mode of living. As the monk Nilus, Nicholas soon became famous for his virtues.2 While declining honours such as the bishopric of Rossano, he did not refuse his services to anybody. He was as much respected by the ravaging infidel as by his own countrymen ; and, though a Greek Basilian monk, he was regarded by the Benedictines of Monte Cassino "as the great Anthony come to them from Alexandria, or as the great Benedict, their own divine Legislator and Master, risen from the dead." After having been driven from place to place by the ravages of the Saracens, Nilus and his companions settled down for fifteen years (c. 980-99=;) in the neighbouring mountainous monastery of S. Angelo di Vallelucio, given them by the abbot of Monte Cassino. But at the time of Otho's second •coming to Rome to restore Gregory (997), Nilus was living in a monastery near Gaeta, known, from a temple of Serapis, which had once stood on the spot, as Serpen. Crescentius When Crescentius had expelled Gregory from Rome, he

II. and his

antipope. l Vit. S, Nil., c. i, n. 2. Rosanno is best known now as the place where is preserved the famous Codex Rossanensis, a Greek MS. of the gospels of SS. Matthew and Mark, written on purple parchment in letters of silver. 2 On the marriage of Nicholas, cf. Rocchi, p. xi. ff.

GREGORY V. 415

had leisure to reflect on the probable consequences of his act and the best means of averting them. His deliberations were assisted by the arrival in Rome of ambassadors from Constantinople. Wishing to follow the example of his father, and to enhance his imperial position by a matri- monial alliance with the ruler of the Eastern Empire, Otho had dispatched an embassy to Constantinople to seek a Greek bride (99s).1 Among the envoys was John, surnamed Philagathus, bishop of Piacenza. Very in- different, to put the matter moderately, is the character which has come down to us of this Calabrian Greek.2 According to the Annalista Saxo, often formerly quoted as the Chronicle of Magdeburg, he had once been a slave, and was crafty to the last degree. He had come in poverty to the court of Otho II., and had contrived to win the favour of the Empress Theophano.3 Otho himself, on the advice " of wise and God-fearing men," made him abbot of the famous monastery of Nonantula ; for he regarded "the archimandrite John" as "quiet and re- served, as a man of unblemished morals, learned in Greek literature, and both prudent and holy." 4 He soon pushed his way to the front, and became the chaplain of the Empress.5 On the death of Otho II., his own astuteness and the childhood of Otho III. enabled him to retain his

1 "Johannes Placentinus et Bernwardus Wirciburgensis episcopi Constantinopolim ex latere regis, ut sponsam illi inde peterent, directi sunt." Annal. Hildesh., an. 995.

2 Cf. Bonizo of Sutri, Libridecret., " Graecus genere," and the Anna- lista (an. 997), " Genere Calabritanus."

3 When we hear that Theophano was " rather more than kind " to John, we are probably only listening to gossip. With Damian (L. i., ep. 21 — " Qui etiam cum imperatrice .... obscceni negotii dicebatur habere mysterium") compare Bonizo, Ad amicum, L. iv.

4 Diplomata, Nos. 282-3, ap. Gay, Lltalie merid., p. 392.

5 Hist. Mediol., i., c. 1 1, by Arnulf of Milan, who, under Gregory VI I., wrote the history of the archbishops of Milan from 925 to 1076, ap. i?. /. SS., iv. Cf. Thietmar, Chron., iv., c. 21.

416 GREGORY V.

paramount influence at court. He usurped the See of Piacenza. But it was not to be expected that a simple bishopric would satisfy the grasping ambition of John of Rossano ; and when he visited Rome, on his return from his mission to Constantinople with an envoy of the Greek emperor, he found one who was ready to add fuel to the fire of his unholy passions. Twin spirits were John Crescentius and John Philagathus. They would share all power in Rome between them. The Greek was to become Pope, and make a formal grant of the temporal power of the Papacy to Crescentius. Both were to place themselves under the protection of the emperors of Constantinople,1 and Phila- gathus was to make an effort to attach to his interests the deposed archbishop of Rheims, the distinguished Gerbert.2 It was felt that, at emnity as the latter was with Gregory, liberal promises might induce him to go to extremes, and make common cause with them against the true Pope.3

Efforts were at once made not only by the interested parties, but by such as had the welfare of the Church at

1 " Crescentius per Johannem Apostaticum imperium sibi usurpavit, immemor juramenti et pietatis ab imperatore sibi collate," Ann. Saxo. Placentinus Ep. "de quo dictum est, quod Romani decus imperii astute in Grrecos transferre tentasset," Arnulf, I.e. The biographer of S. X ilus says (c. I3,n. 89) that John seized the Holy See with "insatiable avidity " ; and St. Peter Damian, /.£., that he did not spare money in his efforts to acquire the title of Pope.

2 Cf. ep. Gerbert, 220, where Gerbert himself, as it would seem, writes : " Ille Joannes Grcecus quod nobis placuerit, se facturum pollicetur."

3 When conduct such as this is described as patriotic, we can only note once again that as many wonderful things have been said in the name of patriotism as have been accomplished in the name of liberty. Lavisse and Rambaud, Hist. ghUrdUy i., p. 552, make no mistake on the matter : " II ne faut point se meprendre sur le caractere des revolutions qui s'accomplissent alors a Rome : elles sont le fait de l'aristocratie feodale." Rome was full of their fortresses ; their relations held strong places in the country. " La se recrute le parti des Crescentius, non chez le peuple qui n'y gagne rien."

GREGORY V. 417

heart to make Crescentius and his antipope, who took the name of John XVI., return to a sense of their duty. Gregory and Otho sent formal embassies to Rome. By the orders of the antipope they were ruthlessly committed to jail.1 At the same time St. Nilus wrote to him upbraid- ing him for his conduct, exhorting him not to be ensnared by love of human glory, and imploring him to return to the monastic life. In reply to the earnest exhortation of his saintly fellow-townsman, John gave the evasive reply that he was making preparations to carry out the holy man's advice.

Meanwhile his doom was hurrying on apace. Especially otho if Otho's lofty ideas of his imperial dignity are borne in R^me^nc? mind, there can be no difficulty in imagining the feelings of "7* of indignation with which he received the news of the expulsion from Rome of his relation, countryman, and nominee. But a war with the Slavs in the Prussian province of Brandenburg, during the summer of 997 ,2 gave Otho no time to think about the affairs of Italy for many a month. However, before the close of the year, he was marching on the Eternal City " to cleanse the Roman sink,"3 and Pope Gregory was advancing to meet his powerful kinsman. On the news of the approach of the angry emperor with a strong army of Germans and Italians, there was great confusion in Rome. No protection for the traitors was forthcoming from the Greeks. Crescentius threw himself into the Castle of St. Angelo, while John

1 Thietmar (or Ditmar), I.e. ; Annal. Qued., an. 997 ; Atinalista Saxo, an. 997. The Annals of Quedlinburg are especially severe in their adverse judgment of Philagathus. They speak of him " avaritias dia- bolico inebriatus veneno in tantum se elevavit super se, ut ipsam Romse b. Petri sedem .... fornicando potius caccaret, quam vener- ando insideret."

2 Cf. ep. Gerberti, 183.

3 " Ut Romanorum sentinam purgaret." Annal. Hildesh., an. 997. VOL IV. 27

41 8 GREGORY V.

fled from the city and shut himself up in some fortress deemed impregnable.1

Finding themselves untrammelled, a number of the Romans, whom the Annaltsta2 calls ''friends not of the emperor only but of Christ," either obeying a call of duty, if not the command of the emperor, or following their natural fickleness, took up arms against their late rulers. A body of them, in conjunction with some of the imperial troops, and headed by Birthilo, a vassal of Otho,3 set off in quest of the unfortunate antipope. He soon fell into their hands, and, " fearing lest if brought before the emperor he might escape unpunished,"4 these barbarians cut off his nose and ears, and plucked out his eyes and tongue. Brought to Rome, he was incarcerated in a monastery to await his trial.5 Gregory Before the end of February, if not earlier, Otho6 and

re-enter 2 Gregory had made their triumphant entry into Rome, and " sometime during Lent John of Rossano was brought before them, as the treatment he had already undergone " was not an adequate punishment for his great crime." 7 But the cause of the wretched antipope was not yet

1 John the Deacon, Chron. Venet., p. 155, ed. Monticolo, "Johannes, procul a Roma inexpugnabilem turrim intravit." 1 Copying Thietmar, Chron., iv. 21.

3 "Ab Ottonis vassore Birthilone correptus (Johannes)." Catal. Aug. vel. Eccard., ap. L. P.

4 Ann. Quedlinburg., an. 998, followed as usual by the Annalista ; St. Peter Dam., ep. i. 21.

6 Chron. Venet., I.e. An eleventh-century catalogue (ap. M. G. SS. Largob., p. 516) assigns to Otho both the blinding of John and the death of Crescentius. Otto: "excecavit Johannem papam et interfecit Crescentium Romanum patricium." Benzo (ap. M. G. SS., xi. 670) in the same century also ascribes the mutilation to Otho. Those moderns who assign the infliction of these cruelties to the Pope are not, we believe, following the records of history.

6 Cf. a charter of Otho in favour of Hugh of Farfa (ap. R. I. SS., ii., pt. ii., 492), "8 Kal. Martii, A.D. 998 .... Actum Roma."

7 John the Deacon, Chron. Venet.

GREGORY V. 419

desperate. Though worn with age, sickness, and the fast of Lent, the Abbot Nilus 1 appeared in Rome to plead for his fellow-townsman. He was received with every mark of the profoundest respect by both Pope and emperor. They kissed the saint's hands, and made him sit between them. Powerfully did the aged patriarch pour forth his petition that John might be entrusted to his care, and, in his monastery, be allowed to bewail his sins. He reminded Otho and Gregory that to both of them had John stood godfather.2 Vain, however, were all the saint's eloquent pleadings. The ingratitude of Crescentius and the ambi- tion of Philagathus were too great for pardon. Otho felt strongly about the first, and the Pope about the second. John was declared by the council deposed from his sacred rank, and, as usual in cases of public degradation, his vestments were rent asunder.

Then was the unhappy man set upon " by the Romans."3 Degrada- tion of He was placed on an ass with his face to its rear and its Phiia-

...... , , .... gathus.

tail in his hands ; and thus, with his torn garments, was driven through the city, while the people shouted : " Thus let the man suffer who has endeavoured to drive the Pope from his see."4 After this insulting treatment, the poor

1 In the great abbots of the day, in Abbo of Fleury, in Leo of Rome, in Nilus of Rossano, we see the ambassadors of Europe and angels of peace.

2 Vit. S. Nth', c. 13, nn. 89, 90, al., c. 15. Minasi in his note 32 (p. 344 ff.) to his 5. Nilo dl Calabria, Naples, 1892, gives a full account of John Philagathus.

3 So says John the Deacon, from whom we have most particulars regarding the council : " A Romanis impositus deformis aselli tergo, versa facie ad caudam, sub praeconi voce per Romanas regiones duce- batur." To say the least of it, neither Pope nor emperor seems to have interfered to prevent this degrading exhibition. Indeed, according to the biographer of St. Nilus, it was "the cruel Pope" who was the author not only of this degrading treatment but also of the previous barbarities which had been inflicted upon Philagathus.

4 St. Peter Damian, epp. i. 21, and the other authorities already cited.

420 GREGORY V.

sufferer was doubtless confined in some monastery probably in Fulda; and seems to have lived on thus, "sans eyes, sans teeth, sans everything," to the year 1013.1

A somewhat different account of this ghastly story is presented by a letter of the Greek ambassador Leo, of whom we made mention when speaking of the sources of the Life of Gregory V. From this recently discovered document it would appear that the degrading procession of the wretched mutilated antipope took place before his con- demnation by the Roman synod. This order of events perhaps lessens the complicity of the emperor as well as of the Pope in the perpetration of the more serious of the cruelties practised on Philagathus. Both from the official position occupied by Leo, and from the fact that he was in Rome when these deeds of violence were perpetrated, his narrative is perhaps more worthy of credence than that of any of the others who have chronicled the story of John XVI.

" This Philagathus," writes Leo to his brother, " who, to sum up, has (fortunately) no equal, whose mouth is ever full of curses, blasphemies, and calumnies ; this man to whom no one can be compared, and who is not to be likene 1 to anyone, this Pope with hands imbued in blood, this Pope so arrogant and haughty (oh God ! oh Justice ! oh sun !), has stumbled and fallen. And why should I not tell you, my brother, what was the character of his fall ? He was anathematised by the Church of the West.'2 Then his

1 For the notice attached to April 2, 1 01 3, in the An?i. Nccrol. Fuld. (ap. M. G. SS., xiii.), viz. "4 Non. Apr. Grecus Johannes viam universal carnis ingressus est," seems as if it could only be referred to the antipope John of Rossano. A catalogue of the beginning of the twelfth century simply says of him, " Qui turpiter vitam suam finivit." Ap. Origines de Viglise romaine, par les membres de la com, de Solesmes, p. lxxiii.

1 At the synod of Pavia, 997.

GREGORY V. 42 1

eyes were torn out ; in the third place his nose was cut off ; fourthly, his lips were removed ; fifthly, his tongue — that tongue which had uttered so many abominable words- was plucked out ; sixthly, he was led about with great display, proud and grave, on a wretched little ass the tail of which he grasped ; his head, held erect, was covered with an old sack ; seventhly, lie was judged and con- demned. His ecclesiastical vestments were put upon him inside out, and then stripped off. He was then dragged from the temple across the proanos and court to the fountain. Finally, he was thrown into prison as into a place of rest. I have told you, brother — you have the same views as I have myself — the miseries of this un- fortunate Philagathus, without adding anything or keeping anything back. But I would counsel all to refrain from doing what he has dared to do. For justice never sleeps." l

Justly indignant at the savage and then shameful way indignation in which John had been treated by the Romans, who were ever at once childish and cruel, the holy Nilus would hold no further intercourse with the emperor. To an eloquent archbishop whom Otho sent to try and soothe the aged abbot, Nilus replied that the emperor had agreed to give John to him for God, and that consequently the evils which had since then been inflicted on the antipope had been done to God. Both the emperor and the Pope, added Nilus, would suffer for the ills inflicted on John. When at great length the prelate endeavoured to excuse his masters, the saint feigned sleep ; and, as soon as the archbishop had left him in peace, Nilus promptly left the city to found that monastery (Grottaferrata, near Tusculum), in which his countrymen have to this day found a conventual home.2

We have now to turn our thoughts to Crescentius " of the The end of

Crescentius

1 The letter of Leo, ap. Schlumberger, Lcpopee, ii. 282 n. Marble

2 Vit. S. Nz'ti, c. 13, n. 90, al., c. 15. Horse, 998.

422 GREGORY V.

Marble Horse," l battling for life and liberty in the castle of St. Angelo against the attacks led by the Margrave, Ekkehard of Meiszen. The assault on the mausoleum, which our authorities call Domus Theoderici or Turn's hiter Celos as well as the castle of St. Angelo,2 was not begun till after Low Sunday. The resistance of Crescentius was the fierce resistance of despair. But if he was determined to hold out till death in what was then regarded as an impregnable fortress,3 the resolute German had equally made up his mind that he would possess himself of the Patrician alive or dead. He gave the besieged no rest. Day and night he delivered his bold assaults. His mov- able towers overtopped the castle walls, his troops poured

1 John Crescentius (Numentanus) was so called from the famous colossal marble group of two youths holding each a restive horse, known as the Horse Tamers, and standing in the Piazza del Quirinale or di Monte Cavallo, to which it has given a name. The statue used to stand in the baths of Constantine. Hence as it now stands near the Palazzo Rospigliosi, which was built on their site, it occupies much the same place as it has ever done. A fine group in itself, it strongly- attracted the attention of the medieval mind. The Einsiedeln traveller notified its existence ; it became subject-matter for legend in the Mirabilia {cf. Eng. ed., pp. 39, 109) ; and it occupied a very prominent position in fifteenth and sixteenth century plans of Rome. Cf. plans in the work just quoted (p. 196), and in Les antiquitis tie Rome aux XIV, XVI' sikles, by Muntz (Paris, 1886). It might well give a surname to a noble who had a fortress-palace in its neighbour- hood.

2 Later on it was known as the Castle of Crescentius. Castellum Crescentii, "quod vulgo domus Theoderici," says Ekkehard of Aura, ann. 1083. "Before the end of the twelfth century it was called the Castle of the Holy Angel." Cf Mirabilia Urbis Romce, Eng. ed., pp. 77, 78. But the Venetian Chronicle of John the Deacon, treating of this very incident, shows it was so called even in the tenth century : " Munitissimum S. Angeli castellum omnes Romani cives una cum Teutoniquorum exercitu expugnare creperunt," ed. Monticolo, p. 155. St. Peter Damian, in vit. S. Romuald., c. 25, calls it " Mons S. Angeli .... munitio inexpugnabilis."

3 " Validissima turris Adriani .... fuitfabrica qua? sine ullakesionis injuria contra omnem impulsionis machinam durare videtur in saccule" Chron. reg. S. Pantaleon., A. 1001— a chronicle of the twelfth century.

GREGORY V. 423

into it ; and, not for the first time, the tomb of one man became the slaughter-house of many. Crescentius was seized, and, despite his pitiable entreaties for mercy, was at once beheaded on the very top of the castle in the sight of a great multitude of people. His body was then hurled into the moat, and, along with those of twelve of his principal followers who had also been decapitated, was hung by the heels on gallows erected on Monte Mario.1 We may well believe Thietmar when he says that this execution "inspired all present with unspeakable fear"2

1 This hill, which commands a glorious view of the city, of the Campagna, and of the mountains which form Rome's magnificent frame, was named after Cardinal Mario Mellini, who, about the middle of the fifteenth century, built thereon a villa now included in the fort of Monte Mario. Along with the Monte della Creta and the Janiculum it was known in classical times as one of the Montes Vaticani, and, in part at least, as the Clivus Cimice. By the medieval writers it is named either Mons Malus or Mons Gaudii. It is called Mons Malus (of which some regard M. Mario as a corruption) by Benedict of Soracte (c. 26) — " Loduicus rex venit ostiliter usque ad montes Malum hubi est ecclesia S. Clementis." This fact disposes of the idea put forward by the twelfth-century writer of the Chronicle of S. Pantaleon, that the fate of Crescentius caused this hill to be regarded by the Germans as a Mount of Joy (Mons Gaudii), and by the Romans as a Mount of Evil (Mons Malus). " I, however, derive the name of Mons Gaudii from the rejoicings of the pilgrims at the first sight of Rome. My view is supported by the fact that the crusaders called the spot named Biddu, outside Jerusalem, Mons Gaudii, because here the sacred city first came into view" (Gregorovius, Rome, iii. 432 n.). Between this hill in conjunction with the Vatican hill and the Tiber, the plain through which the Via Triumphalis once ran was the Neronian Field (Campus Neronis), on which we have already often seen the encamp- ments of besieging armies.

2 With Thietmar (iv. 21) cf another contemporary, John the Deacon {Chron. Venet., p. 155): "Johannem Crescencium veniam miserabili voce adclamantem in summitate, ut ab omnibus videretur, decollaverunt ; et projecto tellure, aliis, quibus evadendi facultas defuit, simili poena in monte Gaudio imperiali decreto suspensi sunt." The coeval A?inals of Hildesheim state: "Crescentius decollatus cum 12 suis ante .... urbem suspenditur," Ann. 998. Cf Ann. Quedlin., ann. 998 ; Catal. Aug., ap. L. P. ; and Vita Meinwerci (ap. M. G. SS. xi.), bishop of Paderborn, and related to Otho III. He died 1036.

424 GREGORY V.

(for we have already seen the wholesome terror it infused into the lawless nobles of the country) and that " hence- forth the Cesar ruled without any further trouble."

Historians less worthy of credence than the contemporary authorities on which we have hitherto relied for what we have said about the last days of Crescentius, add various embellishments to the account just given. The lively Celtic imagination of Raoul Glaber1 depicts Crescentius slipping in disguise from his fortress, suddenly forcing his way into Otho's presence, and begging that his life might be spared. " Why," sarcastically asked Otho of his attendants, "have you suffered this maker of emperors, laws, and pontiffs to enter the lowly abodes (maglia or mapalid) of the Saxons? Take him back to his lofty throne till we have prepared a fitting reception for him." When the castle had fallen into Otho's hands he bade his men " throw Crescentius down from the highest battle- ments in broad daylight, so that the Romans may never be able to say that you stole their prince." The Milanese historians and St. Peter Damian would make out that the Patrician was captured rather by perjury on Otho's part than by the valour of his troops, and that he was tortured before being put to death.2 But there is no reason why we

1 Hist., i., c. 4, n. 12. Raoul was born about the time these events were in progress.

2 Gregorovius, Rome, iii. 434, prints an epitaph of a certain hand- some Crescentius, Dominus et dux, " Qui tenuit totam feliciter ordine Romam," which Baronius first published ad an. 996, from a copy of it which he had taken from the Church of S. Pancrazio. The epitaph itself is unfortunately no longer forthcoming. For purposes of identifi- cation the fourth and fifth couplets of these Leonine verses are the most important : —

" Tempore sub cujus valuit Tyberinaque tellus Jus ad Apostolici valde quieta stetit. Nam fortuna suos convertit lusibus annos Et dedit extremum finis habere tetrum."

From the latter couplet Gregorovius concludes that the epitaph

GREGORY V. 425

should be dissatisfied with the straightforward narrative of contemporaries, or eke out the information which they furnish us by additions of doubtful value from later authors.

After April 29, 998, the day on which Crescentius and his abettors atoned for their misdeeds with their lives, Gregory passed the remainder of his too short pontificate in political peace.

Of the doings of Philagathus whilst he kept armed The ami- possession of the city of Rome we have very little know- Farfa.an ledge. What we do know is not to his credit.

Some forty miles north-east of Rome, and not many miles from where the Via Salaria leaves the course of the Tiber and turns eastwards, there still stands much of the famous monastery of Farfa. Its remains make a village. In the year 996 and apparently also in 997 it was ruled by Alberic,1 the fifth successor of the infamous Hildebrand 2

concerns Crescentius, a Caballo Marmoreo, and, though he allows that the fourth couplet is obscure, he believes that the poet speaks " in veiled language of the government of Crescentius, and the return of Rome to subjection under Gregory V. " He dared not speak the truth," supposes Gregorovius, u but the Nam in the fifth distich expresses a conclusion from his hidden thought." Rome again became papal, for Crescentius "was overthrown by the fickleness of fate." But surely this is to force words to a preconceived meaning. Stetit is not vertit. The fourth couplet states that in the time of the handsome duke the territory of Rome was prosperous, and under the rule of the Pope enjoyed, was rooted {stetit) in, a profound peace. It is not clear to which Crescentius the epitaph belongs, nor what precisely is meant by some parts of it. — St. Peter Damian represents a certain Tamnus as the agent of Otho's treachery ( Vit. S. Romuald., c. 25, ap. M. G. SS., iv.), and adds, with his usual ready acceptance of marvellous stories, that Otho took the wife of Crescentius as his concubine. According to Arnulf, Hist. Medio/., c. 12, it was "Teutonibus" that Stephania was given " adulteranda."

1 Concerning him we find in two different catalogues of the abbots of Farfa (ap. ft. I. SS., II. ii., p. 296-7) the following entries : "996, Albericus, presbyter et abbas ; 997, Albericus abbas."

2 One of the catalogues just mentioned has " Iste concubinis et filiis ac filiabus res hujus monasterii dedit."

426 GREGORY V.

of whom we spoke in the introduction to this volume. On the death of Alberic, a certain Hugo thought he would like to rule the abbey of Farfa. As the sequel proved, he was anything but a bad man. He had, however, set his heart on being abbot of lordly Farfa. But it was under the special patronage of the emperors,1 and he knew of no method of securing the consent of Otho to his wishes. He would therefore try to get that of the antipope. The so-called John XVI. was probably in need of money, as he had had to disburse large sums to Crescentius. From Philagathus then Hugo succeeded in buying the monastery,2 and became the thirty-second abbot of Farfa. Promptly deposed by Otho, and then at the prayer of the monks restored by him, Hugo became a glorious restorer both of the spiritual and the temporal

1 Cf. the prcvceptmn of Otho, by which he finally confirmed Hugo as abbot, in Chron. Farf, ap. R. I. SS., ii. pt. ii. p. 492, "Juxta Canonum .... auctoritatem et ejusdem monasterii per antiquorum Regum ct Imperatorum adeptam prasceptorum libertatem, electus quisque ab eadem congregatione, prius ejusdem imperiali patrocinio praesentatus gratis roboretur, et tunc a Summo Pontifice canonice consecretur."

- Monasterium) "pretio emerat a Romano Pontifice." lb. Cf Chron. Farf, p. 491, and Destruc. Far/., c. 17, ap. M. G. SS., xi. Gregorovius, Rome, iii. 425 n., maintains against Hofler {Deutsche Papste) that the monastery was bought from Gregory, and gives as a reason that Otho would never have called Philagathus "Bishop of Rome." On the other hand, it is not in the least degree likely that Gregory would have been guilty of an act directly calculated needlessly to annoy Otho at a time when he was dependent on his good will. Besides, Abbot Alberic was alive in 996 and apparently in 997, and Otho's precept accepting Hugo is dated February 22, 998. Hence in that interval must have occurred the death of Alberic, Hugo's scheming with Rome, and his deposition by Otho ; and during all that time the true Pope was wandering about Italy. We may be sure then that it was Philagathus that fingered the money of Hugo. Doubtless Otho used the phrase " Romanus Pontifex" as convenient to designate the bishop who was at the time in possession of the city of Rome.

GREGORY V. 427

side of his monastery, and a prudent dispenser of its charities.1

At the risk of being somewhat tedious, we will narrate Gregory a few more of the doings of Hugo, as they throw much monastery light upon the times, and a little at least on the character °f Farfa* of Gregory.

Near the little river Minio2 (Mignone) in Roman Theceiia Tuscany stood the cella of S. Maria, known from the river, i» Minwne. as in Minione, Hugo contended that this small monastery belonged to Farfa ; that it had originally been leased {per emphyteasem chartulatn) to the monastery of SS. Cosmas and Damian in the Trastevere, and known as in Mica Aurea, for the term of the lives of three successive abbots {per scriptum trium personarum) ; and that at length the authorities of SS. Cosmas and Damian had pretended that the cella was theirs.3 When Otho was appealed to as protector of the monastery, he ordered the affair to be taken before the Pope. This was accordingly done, and the disputants appeared before Pope Gregory in the Lateran palace. Charters were produced on both sides, and at last a seemingly very ancient one by the abbot of St. Cosmas. Hugo offered to produce a champion to prove by " trial by combat " that it was a forgery. " Then Pope Gregory, in consequence of money received from the abbot of St. Cosmas, gave way to anger against Hugo, arose and seized him, and bade him give up his claims to S. Maria."4 In vain the frightened abbot asked why he was

1 Chron. Far/, and Catal. abb.

2 It flows into the sea between the ruins of the ancient Graviscas and Centum Cellae (Civita Vecchia).

3 No wonder S. Gregory I. was opposed to letting the lands of the Holy See by a formal long lease.

4 From the account of the trial drawn up " with the consent of our Apostolic Lord;' (Sylvester II.), ap. R. I. SS., I.e., p. 501. As this document was evidently drawn up under the influence of Hugo, the statement made after Gregory's death that it was money and not the

428 GREGORY V.

used thus violently. The Pope insisted, and Hugo had to give way at the time. But he had no intention of finally giving up what he believed to be his rights. Hence later on in the course of the same year (999) when Sylvester II. had succeeded Gregory, and both the Pope and the emperor had paid a visit to Farfa, Hugo again put in his claim to the cella. Accordingly, once more both abbots were summoned to Rome. Hugo duly presented himself before the emperor, who was residing as usual in the palace on the Palatine (in Palatio).1 Along with Otho there sat in judgment various bishops, John, the prefect, the arcarius of the Holy See, several judices dativi, and many of the

document produced by the abbot of St. Cosmas which induced him to give judgment against Hugo, cannot be regarded as too well founded. Compare Gregory's refusal of "great treasure of gold and silver," infra, p. 435.

1 Though in this century much of the old palace of the Caesars was but a heap of crumbling ruins, still no doubt portions of it were still in use. Small churches had been formed out of parts of the imperial buildings. Such, for instance, was the oratory of St. Caesarius in Palatio, once the official chapel wherein the busts of the emperors of Constantinople were placed, but at this period part of a Greek monastery (L. /'., ii., p. 136). And such also was the little Church of S. Sebastiano alia Polveriera, otherwise called S. Maria in Pallara, near the arch of Titus. Hence though Otho III. adapted for his use an ancient palace on the Aventine close to the monastery of SS. Alexius and Boniface where once had resided St. Adalbert, the friend of his grandfather {Gesta Epp. Camerac.,\. i., c. 114, ap. P. Z., t. 149— "in antiquo palacio quod est in monte Aventino versabatur"), it would seem that this fllacitum was held on the Palatine, as well from the simple designation " in Palatio," as from the fact that we know that along with Pope Sylvester II. he presided at a gathering in the little Church of St. Sebastian : " Presidents D. Gerberto Ap. cum Imperatore in Palare, in iccclesia S. Sebastiani martiris" (Thangmar in his Life of S. Bern ward, ap. M. G. SS., iv. p. 768). It is even possible that the palace referred to may be that one near St. Peter's, where the Vatican now stands, which, according to Andrew of Bergamo, was built by Charlemagne, and where the emperors and their missi used to reside during the ninth century. Cf. Libcllus de imp. potest., and an act of 1017 (No. 504, ap. Regesto di Farfa, t. iii.) in which there is mention of a palace " D Karoli imperatoris."

GREGORY V. 429

highest imperial officials, such as the commander of the troops {imperialis militice magister), the head of the fleet (prcefectus navalis), the keeper of the wardrobe {yestararius sacri palatii), and the master of the household {palatii imperialis magister). Though summoned twelve times, the abbot of St. Cosmas failed to put in an appearance. Judgment was accordingly given in favour of Hugo, and by an imperial precept1 the cella of S. Maria was duly handed over to the abbey of Farfa.

On Tuesday, April 5, 998, " the Lord Pope Gregory and St. Eus- the Emperor Otho were sitting in judgment in the basilica against of St. Peter." Before them came a crowd of people de- manding justice. Among others came certain priests of the Church of St. Eustachius in Platana.2 " Most pious emperor," they said, "we would have justice against Hugo, abbot of the monastery of St. Mary, by the river Farfa. He disputes our right to the two churches of St. Mary and St. Benedict, built in the Alexandrine3 Baths, situated in the Ninth Region."4 It chanced that Abbot Hugo was among the throng. He was at once brought before the acting judges, who, we are told, were, on behalf of the emperor, Leo, the archdeacon of the Sacred Palace, and John, prefect of the city ; and, on the part of the Pope, Gregory, primicerius of the defensors, Leo, the arcarius, and Adrian, Peter, and Paul, judices dativi. Hugo, not unnaturally, asked for a delay, as he had not come prepared for a lawsuit. He was offered a Roman advocate. But a Roman advocate was not what Hugo wanted. The monastery of Farfa had always been under Lombard law,

1 Guided, it was declared, by the dictum of Justinian that judgment given in the absence of a litigant who had been thrice summoned should stand firm, ap. R. I. SS., I.e., p. 500.

2 A church still standing, not far from the Pantheon.

3 The Thermae Alexandrinas were attached to the Pantheon.

4 The history of the trial, ap. R. I. SS., I.e., p. 505.

430 GREGORY V.

and so the abbot asked for an advocate learned in that law. " Whether you like it or whether you do not," replied the judges, " Roman law must content you." To this Hugo demurred. Whereupon the archdeacon seized him by the cowl, and made him sit down next to him. 11 You shall not leave this place (placitum) until you comply with the law." "The law I contravene not," replied the abbot, " but I must be granted time." By the express command of the emperor, a delay of three days was granted to him. When he re-appeared before his judges, he insisted upon the case being tried according to Lombard law, because for more than a hundred years the property of the monastery had been defended according to that law. The matter was referred to the emperor himself. Otho decided that, if the abbot could prove that in the past his monastery had been subject to Lombard law, he could now have the benefit of that law. By the production of a deed, ratified by the Emperor Lothaire and Pope Paschal I.,1 which the opposite party were not able to gainsay, the dispute was allowed to be tried according to the law of the Lombards. And, as in accordance with the provisions of that law, Hugo was able to swear to possession of the churches for forty years, a verdict was given in his favour. By that sentence the two churches with their dependencies were made over to Hugo by the presentation to him of a rod. Moreover, the document on which his opponents relied

1 " Ostenderunt confirmationem . . . . ubi continebatur, quomodo definitum est ante praesentiam imperatoris (Lotharii) et D. Paschalis P., quod idem monasterium sub lege Langobardorum vivere deberet et sub tali privilegio esse debet, sicut cetera Monasteria, qua: infra regna Francorum constituta sunt, i.e. Luxoviensium (Luxeuil), Lirinen- sium et Agaunensium et Pontificem Rom. nullum dominium in jure ipsius monasterii habet excepta consecratione." The account of the trial, ap. R. I. SS., i.e., p. 506.

GREGORY V. 431

was cut through with a knife in the form of a cross and then handed to the defendant.

The last episode1 with which the names of Hugo and Abbots Gregory are linked is of a more romantic character than Gui§oan the preceding, but was not settled for years after Gregory's counts death. The beginning of the affair is thus related by ^3 John. Hugo, the historian. Pope John, who is called the Greater (John XV.),2 exalted one of his nephews named Benedict, and gave him a noble wife (Theodoranda) and the county of the Sabina and other places. The newly married couple went to live in the Sabine territory, and settled at Oreo (Arci). At that time the monastery of Farfa was governed by an abbot (John III.), who was an altogether worldly-minded man. Theodoranda soon perceived this, and at once proceeded to play upon his weakness for her own ends. The dainties3 in which she knew he delighted she cooked and prepared with her own hands. She would even serve up the good things herself, in her own dainty manner, when he sat at table and feasted. In her visits to the abbey too she was assiduous, and whenever anything occurred that prevented her going there in person, the servants of the castle were to be seen constantly going with some obliging message from the Lady Theodoranda, or returning with some suitable compliment from Abbot John.

At this time the hill-fortress of Tribuco was held of the abbot by Martino Riconis ; but the rocca itself (the citadel of the place) was kept by the abbot in his own hands. Whenever for any cause he had to leave home, he en-

1 On it see R. I. SS., I.e., pp. 509, 510, and p. 549 f. ; M. G. SS., xi.

2 Cf. supra, p. 348.

3 From this point Miley's rendering of Hugo's narrative is adopted, Hist, of Papal States, ii. 328.

432 GREGORY V.

trusted this rocca to Riconis and his followers, who used to give it up to him on his return. Now these men, being very ruffianly in their behaviour, and abandoned to all manner of criminal courses, were in the habit of plundering travellers and brought shame and grief to Abbot John.

Partly to be rid of this desperate gang, partly influenced by the attentions of the count and the fair Theodoranda, and partly in the hope of obtaining from them a costly missal which they had half promised him, he made over to them the fortress town of Tribuco by a deed which the Romans call a tertium genus. But when Benedict would not make over to the abbot the missal which had belonged to the count's uncle, and which was said to be worth no less than thirty pounds, John refused to ratify the deed with his signature.

Knowing that those who held Tribuco were fierce and wily, the count and his wife devised a means of accom- plishing by the vilest craft what they could not effect by force. Under sworn guarantees of safe-conduct they lured a number of the principal men of Tribuco into their castle of Oreo. Some of them they at once plunged in chains into their deepest dungeons {in ima carceris), while they released the rest on payment of a ransom after exacting from them the deeds of property which they held of the abbey. Even after this loss of their chief men, Tribuco held out against the count's men for a year. The place only fell into his hands at last by bribery. When, however, he had secured it, Count Benedict became a greater bandit than ever Riconis had been, and harried the whole neighbourhood.

Among the properties Benedict came into possession of as above described, was the manor (curtis) of S. Gethulius. In vain the Abbot Hugo daily implored Pope Gregory

GREGORY V. 433

and the emperor for justice against the count.1 But the execution at Rome "of Count Crescentius, by the orders of Otho and Pope Gregory " 2 (998), at last struck terror into Benedict, and, with the knowledge of the emperor and the Pope, he gave up his claim to half the manor. Whilst Hugo was holding out for the other half and for Tribuco, Crescentius, the son of Count Benedict,3 was foolish enough to come to Rome. He was at once seized by Otho and Gregory to be used as a lever against his father. Benedict was then ordered to give up Caere, which he had also annexed. He promised to do so; but, instead of surrendering it, entrenched himself therein. After him in wrath at once hastened both emperor and Pope. " Come with me to Caere," said the latter to Hugo. " If Count Benedict gives it up to me, he shall receive back his son, and an end shall be put to the dispute between you and him. But if not, I will hang the son before his father's face and restore Tribuco to you." Benedict would not surrender the city till he saw his son being led blindfold to the gallows.

After this, whilst Otho lived, the monastery of Farfa held its goods in peace. But on his death (1002), "John, the son of Crescentius, was ordained Patricius; and he began to favour John and Crescentius, the sons of Count Benedict, as his beloved relatives." 4 Feeling strong in the support of their powerful kinsman in Rome, the manor and other properties were again seized by the

1 "Abbas (Hugo) quotidie ad Dom. Gregorium Apostolicum et ad Ottonem piissimum Imperatorem'proclamabat ut legem exindehaberet." Chron. Far/., I.e., p. 509.

2 " Ipso anno (the year that Hugo became abbot) interfectus est Crescentius Comes jussu Ottonis . . . . et Gregorii." Destruct. Far/., ap. 7?. /. SS., I.e., p. 552.

3 " Praedicti Comitis Benedicti fuerunt filii Johannes et Crescentius. . . . Pnelibatus Crescentius venit illuc (Rome) levitatis causa," ib.

4 Ib.

VOL IV. 28

434 GREGORY V.

brothers. It was not till 1012, in the reign of Pope Benedict VIII., that a settlement was arrived at under Abbot Guido, and John, Crescentius, and his wife Hitta formally renounced most of what they had long unjustly held.1

After having thus at no little length recounted the comparatively petty affairs of a monastery, we may pause for a moment to contemplate with astonishment the survival of the privilege of living under either Lombard or Roman law at pleasure ; to marvel at the lawlessness of the nobility ; and to note the spread of the feudal system in the patrimony of St. Peter. We must then hasten to consider what there is left of the larger interests with which Gregory V. was connected. One of his friends was ^lfric, who was elected archbishop of Canterbury in 995, and " was a very wise man, so that there was no more sagacious man in England." 2 Anxious to promote the reform of S. Dunstan, he was desirous of carrying out the designs of his energetic predecessor Sigeric, and of replacing the secular canons who had got possession of the cathedral of Canterbury with monks. But he was also wishful to be just; and before he expelled the seculars he would find out who had the prior claim to possession. " And forthwith he sent for all the wisest men that he anywhere knew of, and in like manner the old men who were able to say truest how everything was in this land in the days of their forefathers, besides

1 " Refutaverunt toti tres (John, Crescentius, and Hitta) medietatem de suprascripta Curte, quae vocatur S. Getulii, excepto ipsum Castellum quod vocatur Tribucum." The deed of renunciation, ap. R. I. SS., /.c, p. 510. Cf pp. 518 f, 524, 553 f; and Jaflfe, sub 4005. Tribuco and Bucciniano were restored to Farfa through the warlike efforts of Benedict VIII. in 1014.

2 A. -Sax. Chron., ii., p. 106 (R. S.), an. 995. Hook in his Lives of the Archbishops of Canterbury, i., c. 7, confuses the archbishop of Canterbury with the homilist /Elfric. He " was hallowed archbishop at Christchurch " in 996.

GREGORY V. 435

what he himself had learned in books and from wise men." 1 From this witan he learnt that, "all as St. Gregory had commanded," the monks had originally held the cathedral. " The archbishop then .... went with these men anon to the king, and made known to him all. Then said the king (Ethelred) : ' It seems to me advisable that thou, first of all things, shouldst go to Rome after thy pall, and that thou make known all this to the Pope, and afterwards proceed by his counsel.' And they all answered that this was the best counsel. When (the secular clerks) heard this, they advised that they should take two from themselves and send to the Pope, and should offer him great treasure of gold and silver, on condition that he should give them the arch-pallium. But when they came to Rome, the Pope would not do that, because they brought no letter, either from the king or from the people, and commanded them to go where they would. As soon as the clerks had gone thence, came the Archbishop ^Elfric to Rome (997),2 and the Pope received him with great worship, and commanded him on the morrow to celebrate Mass at St. Peter's altar ; and the Pope himself put on him his own pall, and greatly honoured him. ... 'Go now to England again,' said Gregory, ' with God's blessing, and St. Peter's and mine, and when thou comest home, put into thy monastery men of that order which the Blessed Gregory commanded Augustine therein to place, by God's command, and St. Peter's and mine.' . . . Returned to England .... (he) drove the clerks out of the monastery, and therein placed monks, all as the Pope had commanded him."3

1 A.-Sax. Chron., ii. p. 106 (R. S.), an. 995.

2 lb., an. 997. " In this year yElfric went to Rome after his arch-pall," no doubt, at the beginning of the year.

3 lb. pp. 108-9. This narrative is one of the "peculiar additions, chiefly relating to Kentish ecclesiastical affairs," which belong to MS. * F ' of the A.-S. Chron. Cf. z'b., i., pp. xx., xxi. No mention of this

436 GREGORY V.

Fatigued, it may be, with his arduous journey to Rome, and exhausted by the closeness of the struggle he had had with the secular canons of his cathedral, it would seem that ^lfric fell ill on his return to England, for in a letter to Abbo of Fleury we find Gregory expressing an anxious wish that the good abbot would send him word as to the archbishop's condition.1 At any rate, " the most sagacious man in all England " must have improved in health, for he ruled his archdiocese eleven years, " in the midst of continual trouble from the pagans (Danes), and with the most exemplary piety, and then in Christ's Church went to his rest, and was translated to heaven"2 (1005).

If there is one thing which the official documents of Gregory V. prove, it is the influence which the Emperor Otho had with his kinsman. So great was it that the government of the Church may almost be said to have been shared by him. Fortunately, Otho III. was a man of high ideals, and anxious to do good, and in so often allow- ing himself to be moved by his wishes, the Pope was, as a rule, but advancing the sacred causes of justice and civil- isation. The bulls of Gregory and the other records of the time show him in his youthful efforts to renew the world, i.e., the Church and the Empire, on the one hand attaching himself closely to the head of the Church, and in his acts signing himself "Servant of the Apostles," "Servant of Jesus Christ," and dating them " from the palace of the

appeal to the Pope by the clerical and lay heads of the nation is made in Hunt's Hist, of the English Church, and Dean Hook, Lives of the Archbishops of Canterbury, i. 452, says these statements in the A.-S. Chron., "are not made by a contemporary "—which is possible — "and are coloured by the writer, who was a monk." How far " coloured " by the monk the dean does not suggest.

1 Ep. 12. "Petens .... de Cantuariorum archiepiscopi incolumi- Ute renuntiet."

2 Actus Pontif Cant., by Gervase, ap. Script. Decern., p. 1648.

GREGORY V. 437

cloister,"1 and, on the other hand, copying the ways of the emperors at Constantinople. We have already seen how he surrounded himself with officials bearing high-sounding titles like those who assisted the ruler of Byzantium.

He was rarely in Germany. Rome was his love. He Otho's fatal

J J love f< -r

would make it once again the capital of the world ! And Rome, then Pope and emperor, acting together, would reform it. With this noble end in view, he tried to inspire the people of Rome with his own great thoughts, and made the fatal mistake of trying to win them over by acts of kindness. But the history of the Romans during the Middle Ages is a repetition of that of the Jews. " When they were in honour they did not understand." To render them docile it was necessary that the yoke for their necks should be heavy, and that it should be pressed down. " A young man, at once courageous and well born, conceiving projects great indeed but of impossible fulfilment, he thought to raise the empire to the might of its ancient rulers. He hoped also to reform the discipline of the Church, which the avarice and mercenary ways of the Romans had dragged down, and to bring it up to the standard of earlier and better days. The more readily to effect these ends, he treated the Romans with the most familiar consideration. As they were natives, and profoundly versed in men and things, he gave them the preference to his own Teutons, and made them his chief advisers.2 Wise measures, doubtless, if they had effected their purpose. This, however, they quite failed to do. The more gracious the condescension he

1 His palace on the Aventine by the Church of S. Alessio.

2 " Ipsos (Romanos), ut locorum accolas et morum ac consuetudinum gnaros, suis Teutonicis preferens, consiliarios sibi habebat et primos." Gesta Epp. Camerac, i., c. 114 ap. M. G. SS., vii. Cf. Otho's own words to the Romans (to be quoted in the Life of S. Sylvester), in vit. S. Bernwardi, ap. M. G. SS., iv.

438 GREGORY V.

showed towards them, the greater was the stiff-necked pride which they exhibited."1

As we have said, the bulls of Gregory V. are a proof of much of this. Thus it was " at the request of Otho " that he subjected the famous abbey of Reichenau (Augia Dives) to the direct jurisdiction of the Popes, and granted its abbots the privilege of being consecrated by the Popes only, and of saying Mass in various vestments that usually are only worn by a bishop;2 that he confirmed the rights of the equally famous abbey of Lorsch, and undertook to protect it ;3 and that he did the same for the monasteries of Cluny and Petershausen on the Rhine.4 It was due to the same intervention that he confirmed to the See of Beneventum the metropolitan rights which Otho I., to oblige his ally Pandulf I., Ironhead, had induced John XIII. (969) to grant to it.5 And again, to oblige "our most beloved son," and because we think it right in a fatherly way to strengthen the imperial dignity by our apostolic authority, " Gregory grants that the Church of Aachen (Aix-la-Chapelle) may be served by seven cardinal-deacons and seven cardinal-priests, and that, with the exception of these cardinals, the archbishop (of Cologne) and the bishop (of Liege) of the place, no one else shall presume to say Mass on the altar of Our Lady in the said church.6

1 Such are the wise reflections of the canon of St. Marys, who, at the bidding of Gerard (bishop from 1012 to 105 1), wrote the history of the bishops of Cambrai. We shall quote from him again. Cf. Thietmar, Chron., iv., 29. He tells us that different men formed different opinions as to the wisdom of Otho's conduct at the time. They do so still. While some (as Mr. Bryce, Holy Rom. Emp, p. 140 f.), with reason, in our opinion, speak sympathetically of Otho III., others (French writers in particular) try to belittle him.

1 Concedit ut "missas celebrent cum dalmatica et sandaliis." Jaffe\ 3880, 1.

* Id., 3887. « Id., 3895, 6, 7. La, 3884.

6 Id., 3875, P. /-., ep. 8.

GREGORY V. 439

Otho was also present at synods, and took a share l in their decisions in matters ecclesiastical ; as, for instance, at the synod of May 9, 998, which was composed of bishops and nobles from both sides of the Alps. The synod had to decide between the rival claims of Arnulf and Guadald to the See of Vich (Ausona) in Catalonia. It was proved that the latter had usurped the see, and had slain its lawful occupant. At the command of the Pope, the archdeacon and the oblationarius performed the ceremony of degrading Guadald " after the manner of the Romans." They took the ring from off the hand of the deposed prelate, broke his crozier over his head,2 rent his vestments, and made him sit on the ground. Then, in accordance with the will of the emperor {imperatore jubente), and the decision of the bishops, and with the consent of the senate and the military nobility, Gregory, " by the privilege of our authority," raised Arnulf to the disputed bishopric, gave him the crozier and ring,3 and the power of binding and loosing and, "with the precept of the emperor," all the appurtenances of the see.4

At another synod 5 held in St. Peter's, probably towards the close of 998, in which not only was King Robert threatened with anathema unless he dismissed Bertha, but various episcopal causes and the restoration of the See of Merseburg were decided, Otho was again present.

As we have had occasion to remark before, the papal Charters o

. , 1 exemption

grants to monasteries of exemption from episcopal control, and papal

influence.

1 " Consentiente et judicante D. Ottone imperatore Augusto." P. L., ep. 18.

2 " Et virgam pastoralem super caput ipsius frangentes." lb.

3 " Annulumque et virgam pastoralem ei dedimus." lb.

4 It will be on this basis that we shall see the " investiture quarrel " terminated.

5 Labbe, ix., p. 772.

440 GREGORY V.

or of other privileges either to them or to their abbots,1 which constitute by far the greater proportion of what is left of the papal regesta of this period, have more than a local interest. They serve to prevent one from supposing that what with the turbulence of the Romans on the one hand, and the patronage of Otho on the other, the pontiffs them- selves of this troubled time were without influence. Papal grants of privilege would not have been so eagerly sought for, as well by kings as by abbots, if, in the tenth century, it had not been felt that there was more virtue in a papal bull than in a royal charter or helmet of steel. And so in response to requests from all parts of the West, we find Gregory granting fresh privileges or confirmation of exist- ing ones to monasteries in smiling valleys, by rushing rivers, or on frowning hills, to monasteries both near home and in the distant parts of the Western Empire.2 Ardoin, Not many weeks before he died, Gregory came into

marquis > contact ^^ Ardoin, marquis of Ivrea, who was, on the death of Otho III., to get himself proclaimed king of Italy. Because he was not a German, some see in him another Italian patriot. He was simply like the rest of the nobility of his time. He wanted as much power for him- self as he could seize, and as much property as he could pluck from the hands of those weaker than himself.

1 And so to Azzo, abbot of St. Peter's "Cceli-aurei" at Pavia, Gregory granted the use of the insignia of a bishop down to the gloves (cyrotheccc or chirothecce) and the right to a bell when travelling. " Usum dalmaticae, mitne, sandaliorum, cyrothecarum, et in itiner- andum insigne tintinnabuli " concedit. Jaffe, 3871 (2977).

1 In the order in which they are alluded to in the text we would call attention to bulls addressed to the monasteries of St. Martin of Tours (Jaffe, 3S70), of St. Andrew at Avignon (3898), of Fulda among the Taunus mountains, of St. Saviour on Monte Amiato (3864), and of Stabulaus and Malmedy (3867), neighbouring monasteries in the diocese of Cologne. The confirmation of the possessions of the monastery of Gnesen in Poland (3885) may be regarded as a result of the martyrdom of St. Adalbert.

GREGORY V. 44 1

Whether or not on any more valid grounds than these, Ardoin suddenly seized the property of St. Mary's of Ivrea, expelled its bishop, and slew the serfs on his estates.1 The bishops of the province denounced him, and laid their complaints against him before the Pope.2 They begged their head to take heed of the trouble of its members, lest the whole body should become infected. Ardoin had gone the length of killing the priests of the Lord, and of burning their bodies;3 and was only made worse by their admonitions. Gregory was exhorted to confirm the excommunication already pronounced by them against the marquis. The Pope, however, did not fully comply with the request of the bishops. But he informed 4 Ardoin that if he did not repent and amend he would be anathematised at the following Easter-time. This missive, it would seem, must have produced its effect, as the bishop of Ivrea (Warmund) remained in peaceful possession of his see till ion, and succeeded (July 9, 1000) in procuring from Otho a charta of exemption, by which he secured the city of Ivrea and the territory for three miles round it.5

After the synod (held probably at the close, of 998) in Death of

Gregory,

which Robert had been threatened with anathema un- February less he dismissed Bertha, Otho had left Rome for the999' South. Whilst he was engaged in consolidating his power among the turbulent princes who were disputing the possession of Southern Italy with one another, with the

1 "Cujus episcopum a sede propria saepe violenter expulit, cujus servos contrivit, cujus famulos exterminavit." Cf document 6, p. 338, ap. Provana, Studi cC tempi del re Ardoino, and doc. 9, p. 340.

2 Id., doc. 10, p. 341.

3 " lpsos quoque Domini sacerdotes bestialiter trucidant (forse trucidat, says the editor) et quasi poena eis ueementior possit inferri, inaudita sevitia, postea ipsi cadaueri parat incendium." lb. Provana (p. 81 n.) regards this as a rhetorical exaggeration from one case.

4 lb., doc. 11, p. 343.

* Cf the charter in Provana, p. 354 ; cf. p. 85.

442 GREGORY V.

Greeks and with the Saracens, word was brought to him of the death of his relative and countryman Gregory V. As to most of what happened at Rome after this depart- ure of Otho we have no certain knowledge. But at any rate, according to Thietmar, our best authority, we know that Gregory died on February the fourth, "after having made the best dispositions for the government of Rome." 1 Less trustworthy authorities, probably mistaking the date of Gregory's expulsion from the city, and confusing his death with the circumstances attending the degradation of the antipope, would make out that he was expelled a second time, and put to a violent death.2 The fact, how- ever, that, on the death of Gregory, the Romans quietly awaited the arrival of Otho, and accepted the new Pope he gave them, while there is no hint of any severe measures of reprisal taken by the emperor, is enough to discredit these sensational stories.

According to Peter Mallius, Gregory was buried in St. Peter's, " in front of the sacristy (i.e. on the Gospel side), near Pope Pelagius." His epitaph, which we have already quoted, is still to be seen in the crypt of St. Peter's. There is also preserved there the small slab on which was inscribed the sepulchral title : " f Gregorius PP. V." 3 At

1 " Gregorius, bene dispositis Romx omnibus, 2 Nonas Februarii obiit." Chron., iv., c. 27.

2 "Vi exturbabatur quasi tyrannus, ut dicentcs quosdam audivi, et cffossis sibi oculis, quos pendentes ad genas ferebat, ea pom pa sepultune mandabatur." Vit. S. Nili, c. 91, Latin version. The biographer of the saint, only too ready to believe that something dreadful had happened to those who did not comply with all his master's wishes, acknowledges that he was only repeating rumours. Cf. Vit. Meinwerci, c. 7, where it is said that poison put an end to the life of Gregory, and where March 12 is given as the day of his death. Cf. also Rupert, in vit. Herib., c. 5. In c. 93 the biographer of S. Nilus goes equally astray in his account of the death of Otho.

' Crisar, A nalecta Rom., Tav. iv., gives a photographic reproduction of the title and of the first few lines of the epitaph.

GREGORY V.

443

some period the top left-hand corner of the inscription was destroyed. The damage was made good in the eleventh or twelfth century. As happened so frequently at this period, no new coffin was made for Gregory, but there was used for the purpose a Christian richly carved sarcophagus of the fourth century, which is now in the crypt of St. Peter's, near the tomb of Otho II. It was originally placed at the right of the tomb of S. Gregory I., and bore the following inscription : —

t Hie quern claudit humus oculis vultuque decorum

t Papa, fuit quintus nomine Gregorius. t Ante tamen Bruno Francorum regia proles

t Fzlius Ottonis de genetrice Judith, t Zzingua Teutonicus Wangia (Worms) doctus in urbe.

t Seed juvenis cathedram sedit apostolicam t Ad binos annos et menses circiter octo

t Ter senos Februo connumerante dies, t Panperibus dives per singula Sabbata vestes

t Divisit, numero cautus apostolico. t Usus Francisca vulgari l et voce Latina

t Instituit populos eloquio triplici. t Tertius Otto sibi Petri commisit ovile

t Cognatis manibus unctus is imperium. t Exuit et postquam terrenae vincula carnis

t .Equivoci dextro substituit lateri.2

Discessit XII Kal. Martii.

1 As further showing the'growth of Italian from the Latin at this period, compare the defence of an Italian in 960, who had been laughed at for a solecism by the monks of St. Gall : " Falso putavit S. Galli monachus me remotum a scientia grammatical artis, licet aliquando retarder, usu nostrce vulgaris linguce quce Latinitati vicinaest^ quoted by Fauriel, Bib. de Fecole des chartes, ii. 624. And a document at the close of the same century bids a bishop explain certain truths to the people communibus verbis ; ap. Provana, Studi sovra la Storia d'/lalia,

P- 339-

2 That is, he was buried to the right of Gregory I. Cf. Grisar, Analecta, p. 188 f. According to Grisar the long curved line with which each verse terminates is a^ distinctive peculiarity of epitaphs of the tenth and eleventh centuries. The epitaph may be read also ap. L. P., ii., p. 262. The italics in the text show the later restoration. A translation of every line of the epitaph has^beenf given in some part or other of the text.

444 GREGORY V.

While there is cause for satisfaction that such an excep- tionally full epitaph of Gregory V. has been preserved to throw a few faint illuminating rays on the obscurity of the Iron Age, we have to regret that the light, small but clear, which numismatology has hitherto so often furnished us, will fail us almost entirely for three centuries, viz. for the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth. Not accepting as be- longing to Philagathus the coins which Cinagli assigns to him, Promis contends that, with the exception of those of S. Leo IX. and Paschal II. (i 099-11 18), no papal coins are extant from the days of Benedict VII. (975-983) to those of Blessed Benedict XI. (1 303-1 305). Pizzamiglio, however, shows good reason for holding that coins which Promis assigns to Benedict VII. and Sergius III. of the tenth century really belong to Benedict VIII. and Sergius IV. of the eleventh century.1 Still, even if his contention be allowed, papal coins will not supply us with much material for the next three hundred years.

Having now before us all that the scanty records of his time have left us of the life of Gregory V. we may, we believe, justly regret that his reign was so brief. Rejecting as utterly unproven the charge of avarice which some would bring against him, it is his bountiful charity to the needy which, on the contrary, deserves to be chronicled. Such wealth as he had was at the service of those in want. For them only was he rich. By him it was that their naked- ness was covered. To his great charity he joined an exemplary zeal for the glory of God — a zeal which was ennobled and saved from any danger of fanaticism by learn- ing. In his endeavour to be all things to all men, he addressed his exhortations to the learned in Latin, to the

1 Studi intorno adalcune monete Papa//, p. 59. Cinagli is of the same opinion regarding the coins of Sergius IV. Cf. Promis, Monete dei R. P., p. 98.

GREGORY V. 445

people of the land of his adoption in the vulgar tongue, i.e. in Italian, which was in course of formation from the Latin of the common people, and to the men of his own country in German.

And if the fire of his youth, and perhaps some natural German roughness, occasionally led him to act with a severity to which the Romans were unaccustomed and which was at times excessive, their turbulence was at once its cause and almost its justification.

These were the two points in Gregory's character which most impressed themselves upon the Abbot Abbo during the time — all too brief, but never to be forgotten, as he declares — which he spent in his company, viz. "his eloquence, truly Gregorian, and his severity tempered by paternal indulgence." x We can only regret that Gregory V. and Otho III. did not live longer to put a stronger curb on the violent passions of the Roman nobility who oppressed with equal impartiality both Popes and people. There would have been much better times for Italy, Rome, and the Papacy had the joint reign of Otho III. and Gregory V. been more prolonged. Then might have been fulfilled the aspirations of the anonymous contemporary poet which the Bamberg MS. has handed down to us. "O, Christ," he sang, " renew the Romans, once more arouse the might of Rome. Under Otho III. may the empire of Rome once more extend its sway. Hail Our Pope, hail most worthy Gregory ! With Otho Augustus, thy Patron Peter receives thee. You are a follower of St. Peter, you cause his praises to be sung. Once again are you re- creating tne rights of Rome. . . . Exult, O Pontiff, in the majesty of a glorious name. You are an honour to the first see. Sedulously have you raised it up. Your prudence shines bright in Gerbert, who is your right hand. 1 Ep. 3, p. 421.

44^ GREGORY V.

Under the power of the Caesar the Pope cleanses the world. Do you two luminaries enlighten the churches throughout the world, and drive away all darkness. May the one of you effect as much by the word of God as the other by the sword."1

1 These verses were printed by Diimmler in his Auxilius und Vulgarius, pp. 57, 58. Unfortunately the poem is full of lacunas. We give a few of the verses which are intact : —

Tu es magister omnium, Tu componis populum

Exulta papa nobilis Majestate nominis Sedem primam condecoras Sedulo jam relevas Tua claret prudentia In Gerberti dextera. Gaude papa, gaude caesar, Gaudeat ecclesia.

Sub caesaris potentia Purgat papa secula. Christe ! Vos duo luminaria Per terrarum spacia Illustrate ecclesias, Effugate tenebras Ut unus ferro vigeat, Alter verbo tinniat.

INDEX.

Abbo, St., 345, 393, 399 ff. Adalberon, archbishop, 301 f.,

318 n., f. Adalbert, St., life of, 325 n.,

327* 35°> 369 f-

Adalbert, son of king Berenger, 227, 250, 254 ff.

Adalbert II., marquis of Tus- cany, 87, 98, 104, 113 n., 120 f.

Adaldag, archbishop, 277 ff.

Adalgarius, archbishop of Ham- burg-Bremen, 64, 238.

Adam of Bremen, historian, 64, 282.

Adelaide, 227 f., 319.

^Elfric, archbishop of Canter- bury, 434 f.

Africa, 58, church of, 384.

Agapitus II., 224 ff.

Age, the iron, 1.

Ageltruda, 51 ff., 80 f.

Aimoin, historian, 345, 393.

Alberic I., 140, 155, 161 f.

Alberic II., tyrant of Rome, 30, 140, 191 f., 194 ff., 203, 207, 210, 215 ff., 219 n., 223, 226, 228 ff., 240.

Alda, daughter of Hugo, 197, 208, 216, 243.

Alexander III., 385 f. Alfred the Great, king, 62. Alo, archbishop, 332. Anastasius III., 132 f., 143 ff. Anathema, formula of, 201. Angelo, St., castle of, 310, 422. Annalista Saxo, historian, 306. Ardoin, marquis of Ivrea, 440 f. Argrim, bishop of Langres, 79,

92, 105. Arnulf, Emperor, 50 ff., 98. Arnulf, archbishop of Rheims,

31* 347, 352 ffM 368 f->

399 ff- Arnulf, bishop of Orleans, 31,

354 ff Arnulf the Elder, historian, 19,

415 n. Artaud, archbishop, 202, 231 ff. Artists, Roman, 29. Athelstan, King, 182. Auxilius, author, 42, 122 f. Azzo, 256, 283.

Baldwin II., count of Flanders,

108. Bartholomew, biographer, 390. Basiento, battle of, 324. Basilica, Sessorian, 327. Benedict IV., 103 ff. Benedict V., 256, 273 ff., 283.

448

INDEX

Benedict VI., 280, 305 ff. Benedict VII., 315 ff. Benedict, count of the Sabina,

285. Benedict, monk, historian, 45,

289. Beneventum, archbishopric of,

294, 438. Berengarius or Berenger of

Ivrea, King of Italy, 10,

226, 247 f., 250, 255 ff.,

275-. Berengarius or Berenger of Friuli, 49, 95, 98, 104 f.,

127, i55 f- Bernoin, archbishop, 57. Bertha, queen, 368, 399 ff. Bohemia, 295, 369 ff. Boleslaus II., 295 f., 371. Boniface VI., 73 ff. Boniface VII., antipope, 310

ff-, 3i7 f.,.335 ff. Bonizo of Sutri, historian, 164. Books, want of, 22. Boso, king, 57.

Bruno, St., biographer, 369, n. Bruno, archbishop, 235 f. Brut-y-Tywysogion, chronicle,

268. Bulgarians, the, 167 ff. Burchard of Worms, 261.

Calabria, 292 f.

Cambrai, history of bishops of,

438 n. Canonisation, 385 f. Capua, 287.

Carthage, church of, 326. Charles the Fat, emperor, 5. Charles the Simple, king, 55 ff,

77, 108, 172 ff. Charles of Lorraine, 352 ff. Christopher, antipope, 112 ff.,

130, 136. Church, Bulgarian, 170. Church, Greek, 129 ff, 197 ff. Church, Roman, poverty of, 97.

Churches :

Lateran basilica, 29, 79, 97,

i35 f.« 185. Our Lady in Gradibus or in

Turry, 387 f. Quatuor Coronati, 321. San Pier in Grado, 1 1 7 f. St. Alexius, 326, 341. S. Croce, 327 f. St. Eustachius, 429 f. S. Maria Aventinense, 207. S. Maria in Dominica, 245. St. Michael on Mount Gar-

gano, 333. St. Peter's, 29, 67, 325, 332. SS. Philip and James, 244. Churches, national, 54. Clement II., 386. Cletorologium, 92 n. Coins, papal, 444. Compostela, 181. Conrad the Franconian, 145,

171. Constantine, abbot, 348. Constantine Porphyrogenitus,

197, 217 n. Councils : Altheim, 171. Chelles, 361 f. Ingelheim, 233. Mouzon, 232, 365 ff. Pavia, 397. Ravenna, (898) 96 f., (967)

289. Rheims, (995) 367. Rome, (897) 78 ff., 88, (898) 73, 94 ff, (904) 122, (950) 234,(963) 257 ff, (964) 262 ff, (967) 289, (983) 324. Soissons, (941) 231. Spalato (Spalatro, 926), 166. S. Basle, 354 ff, 367. Trier, 234. Trosle, 18, 39, 130. Verdun, 232. Vienne, 58. Crescentius III., John, 346 n.

INDEX

449

Crescentius de Theodora, 3 10 ff.

34i. Crescentius Numentanus, of the Marble Horse, 285, 346 ff., 35° f-> 367, 37o ff-i 4i4 ff-

Dalmatia, 165 ff. Damascus, archbishop of, 326. Decarcons, 286. De Cerimoniis, 217 n. Degradation, episcopal cere- mony of, 439. Denmark, church of, 237. Donation of Otho I., 251. Donus II., 312 f. Dorostylon, 170.

Eadmer, historian, 61. Edgar, King, 297 f. Edward, St., the Confessor, 385. Eichstadt, lives of the bishops

of, 383. Ekkehard of Aura, historian,

3°5- Election, episcopal, 6. Elfsy, archbishop, 266. Emma, 378.

Empire, the Holy Roman, 249. England, church of, 2, 61, 182 ff.,

265, 297 ff., 385. Ethelred the Unready, 378 ff. Eudes, or Odo, count, 55, 77,

175- Eugenius II., pact of, 252. Euthymius, patriarch, 132 ff.

Formosus, Pope, 42 ff., 89, 93, 103, 105 n., 107, 113,122 f.

France, church of, 57.

Fraxineto, 9, 323.

Frederick, archbishop, 2 1 o, 2 1 9.

Frode VI., 237 n , 238.

Frodoard, historian, 176.

Frosinone, 101.

Fucino, lake, 320.

Fulk, archbishop of Rheims, 55 ff, 60, 64, 77, 107. VOL. IV.

Garigliano, battle of, 154 ff. Gerbert, 303, 319, 333, 343,

352 ff., 406 ff. Germany, 3. Gisulf, prince of Salernum,

246 f. Gnesen, bishopric of, 297 n. Grado, see of, 87, 90, 143, 289. Greek in south Italy, 412 f. Greeks, power of, in S. Italy,

145, 410 ff. Greenland, 184. Gregory V., 346, 368, 372,

389 ff. Gregory of Catino, monk and

historian, n, 21. Guibert of Nogent, historian,

22. Guido, duke of Spoleto,

emperor, 49. Guido, marquis of Tuscany,

161 f.

Hamburg-Bremen, see of, 64,

183, 237. Harold Bluetooth, 237. Hatto, archbishop of Mayence,

99. Helgaud, biographer, 404. Henry I., Emperor (The

Fowler), 171 f., 209 f. Heraclius, author, 30. Heribert, count of Vermandois,

175 ff., 202, 214, 231 ff. Herimann, archbishop of

Cologne, 64, 173 f. Heriveus, archbishop, 176 ff. Hermann of Reichenau, his- torian, 305. Horse of Marcus Aurelius, 288. Hrotsvitha, 225, 236 n. Hugh, archbishop, 176, 202,

214. Hugh or Hugo of Provence,

king of Italy, 10, 19, 21,

160, 193 ff., 206 ff, 2TO,

215, 226.

29

45Q

INDEX

Hugh of Farfa, 4 n., 285. Hugh of Flavigny, historian,

57 n. Hugh the Great, duke, 213 f.,

233 ff. Hugh Capet, 213, 319 f., 352 ff.,

368. Hugh, marquis of Tuscany,

35°, 396. Hungarians, the, 12 ff., 98, 128, 160, 162, 307 ff.

James, St., the Greater, 180.

Jews, the, 211.

John, archbishop of Ravenna,

afterwards Pope John X.,

126 f. John IX., 91 ff., 121. John X., 133, 137, 140, 145,

149 ff. John XI., 137, 191 ff. John XII., 230, 241 ff, 292. John XIIL, 253, 256, 269,

282 ff. John XIV., 330 ff. John XV., 343 ff, 431. John, archbishop of Spalato,

165, John, artist, 24, 30. John Canaparius, historian,

348, 369 n. John, cardinal-deacon, 256. John Crescentius, Patricius,

433. John, the deacon, historian,

121. John, number of Popes of that

name, 331. John Philagathus, 390, 415 ff. John, son of Crescentius,

287. John Zimisces, 294. Judices dativi, 25. Jurisdiction, papal, in south

Italy, 293.

Kieff, 374, 377 f.

Lambert, Emperor, 50 ff, 80 f.,

84, 87, 92, 97. Landus, 147. Learning, state of, 22. Leo, abbot, 272, 326, 346, 354,

366 ff, 371. Leo, ambassador, 390, 420. Leo V., Pope, 1 1 1 ff. Leo VI., the Wise, emperor,

91 f., 108, 131 ff. Leo VI., Pope, 168, 188. Leo VII., Pope, 205 ff. Leo VIII., 251, 255, 260, 263,

273 f., 281 f. Liturgy, Slavonic, 165 ff. Liturgy, Spanish or Mozarabic,

181 f. Liutprand, bishop, historian,

43, 137, 14', 224, 241 f.,

283, 289, 291 ff. Lorch, 308 n. Lothaire, King of France, 235,

318, 320. Lothaire, - King of Italy, 210,

226 f. Louis the Blind, or of Provence,

98, 104 ff, 157. Louis the Child, 99 f., 145,

171. Louis D'Outre-Mer, 209, 213,

231 ff. Luke, biographer, 390 n. Lupus Protospata, 164.

M ADALBERT, bishop, 1 67 f.,

171, 199. Madgeburg, archbishopric of,

253> 289> 322- Magna Graecia, 410 ff. Maieul, abbot, 315 f. Malacenus, bishop of Amasia,

108. Mallius, 75, 102. Marcus Aurelius, equestrian

statue of, 342. Marinus II., 218 ff. Marinus, Legate, 232 ff.

INDEX

45'

Marozia, 33, 137 ff., 161 f., 193 ff.

Marriages, third and fourth,

131 n. Martinus Polonus, historian,

212, 317. Matilda, mother of Otho I.,

228 n., 248 n. Mayence, rights of its arch- bishop, 321. Meinwerc, bishop, 423 n. Merseburg, see of, 322. Mieszko I., 384. Monasteries :

Blandin, 309.

Cluny, 2, 178 ff., 203, 210.

Farfa, 20, 425 ff.

Fleury, 205.

Fulda, 220.

Gandersheim, 225.

Glastonbury, 297 ff.

Gorze, 239.

La Cava, 324.

Lerins, 315.

Lorsch, 323.

Monte Cassino, 101, 156 n.

Mouzon, 301 f.

Nonantula, 128, 153.

Nova Lux, 128 n., 300.

S. Alessio, 285, 311, 346.

S. Maria in Pallara, 30.

St. Martin ad Littus, 321.

Subiaco, 179, 245, 324. Mons Gaudii, 423 n. Monte Mario, 423. Moravia, 92, 98. Moscow, metropolitans of, 377. Mozarabic, meaning of, 181 n.

Nationality, ideas on, 351. Neronian field, the, 423 n. Nestor, historian, 374. Nicephorus Phocas, 290 ff., 294. N'cholas the Mystic, patriarch,

131, 169 f. Nilus, St., abbot, 371, 389 f.,

413 fT. •

Nona, bishop of, 167. Norsemen, 7 ff.

Octavian (John XII.), 230,

235-

Odo, St., archbishop of Canter- bury, 237 n.

Odo, St., of Cluny, 30, 197. 203, 206 f., 215.

Odo, or Eudes, count, 55.

Officials of the papal court, 25.

Osbern, historian, 266 n.

Otho I., Emperor, 209 f., 213, 220 ff., 232 ff., 247 ff., 290 ff, 310.

Otho II., 248, 252, 290 ff, 295, 310, 315 ff, 318 ff, 325,

33i- Otho III., Emperor, 23, 30,

325, 335, 35o f., 369, 372,

390 ff. Otho, bishop of Frising, 243. Otranto, bishopric of, 293.

Palace, imperial, in Rome, 331,

428 n. Pallium and the Patriarchs of

Constantinople, 199. Pandulf, prince of Capua, 287. Paper, 23.

Papyrus, bulls on, 60. Patrimonies, papal, 35. Pavia, privileges of bishop of,

143- Peter, King of the Bulgarians,

170.

Peter, the Prefect of Rome, 286 f.

Peter's Pence, 271 f.

Petra Pertusa, 340.

Pilgrims, English, massacre of, 208, 215.

Plegmund, archbishop of Can- terbury, 6t ff., 129 n.

Poland, 297 ; given to the Pope, 383.

Politics of tenth century, 54.

452

INDEX

Polyeuctos, patriarch, 293.

Pontifical of Sherborne, 267 n.

Popes, condition of, in the tenth century, 32 ff. ; portraits of, 67 f. ; consecration of, before imperial envoys, 96 f. ; palatine palace of, 222; burial-place of, 240; change of name, 245 ; ex- tent of their temporal power, 253; election of, 257 ; re- ceive countries under their protection, 383 f.

Porto, see of, 127.

Posen, bishopric of, 297.

Prague, bishopric of, 296.

Pratilli, 156 n.

Prefect of Rome, 25.

Privileges, application for, 59.

Prussia, 373.

Ragusa, 327.

Raoul Glaber, historian, 389 f.

Ratherius, bishop of Verona, 18, 192, 242, 284.

Ravenna, papal control over, 35, 196, 221, 289, 407.

Regimbald, bishop, 383.

Regions, Via Lata, 244.

Reordinations, 82, 94, 122 ff., 263.

Rheims, see of, 351 ff.

Richard I., duke of Normandy, 378.

Richer, historian, 175 n., f.

Robert, King, 368.

Rodolf II., King, 146, 159 f., 208, 231.

Romanus, Pope, 86 f.

Romanus L, Emperor, 197, 216.

Romanus II., Emperor, 216.

Rome, 24 ff. ; government in, 25 ; regions, 26, 274, 280, 344; great fire in, 27; art in, 28 ff., 346 ; learning in, 30 and 284; dogmatic power of, 284 ; in decay, 288.

Ruotger, 225 n.

Russia, conversion of, 374 fL

Salona, or Spalato, 165 (f.

Samuel, King, 170.

Saracens, the, 9 ff, 106, 108,

127, 154 f., 323 f-

Saxony, house of, 145.

Schola cantorum, 26, 284.

Sergius II., patriarch of Con- stantinople, 130.

Sergius III., Pope, 48, 66, 83, 93, 113 ff, 119 ff.

Sicus, bishop, 221.

Sigeric, archbishop of Canter- bury, 46, 339, 380 ff.

Silva Candida, see of, 127.

Simeon, King, 134, 168.

Simony, decrees against, 319.

Slavs, the, 164 ff.

Spain, 180 ff, 272.

Stephen (VI.) VII., 76 ff, 113.

Stephen (VII.) VIII., 189 f.

Stephen (VIII.) IX., 209, 212 ff, 232.

Stephen, bishop of Naples, 106.

Stephania, 285.

Theodora, 33, 137 ff., 151 f. Theodora, daughter of above,

33, 137 ff. Theodoranda, 285, 431. Theodore II., 88 ff. Theodoric, archbishop of Trier,

320. Theophania, or Theophano,

290, 294 f., 319, 351. Theophylactus, house of, 33,

286. Theophylactus, patriarch, 198. Thietmar, chronicle of, 225;

bishop, 322. Tivoli, register of, 223. Towns, walled, origin of, 16,

180. Tribuco, fortress of, 431 f. Trier, church of, 299 f., 320 f.

INDEX

453

Udalric, bishop, 2 1 8 f. Ulrich, St., 387.

Varangian guard, 374. Verona, diet of, 325. Vladimir, King, 374 ff. Vulgarius, author, 43, 123 f., 140 f.

Wales, church of, 326 ; laws of, confirmed by the Pope, 144 f. ; married clergy in, 268.

Widukind, historian, 13 n., 224.

William, archbishop, 225, 236,

245- Willigis, St., 372, 391, 399. Wulfhelm, archbishop, 182.

PRINTED BY NEILL AND CO., LTD., EDINBURGH.

THE LIVES OF THE POPES IN THE EARLY MIDDLE AGES. By Rev. H. K. Mann, Headmaster of St. Cuthbert's Grammar School, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Demy 8vo.

Vol. L, Parts I. and II. Each 12s. net.

Vols. II.-VI. Each 12s. net.

Vol. I. Part I. begins with St. Gregory I. (the Great) (590-634), and closes with St. Eugenius I. (654-657). Part II. commences with Vitalian (657-672), and finishes with Hadrian I. (772-795).

Vol. II. begins with Leo III. (795-816) and will close with Benedict III. (855-858). Vol. III. commences with St. Nicholas I. (858-867) and finishes with Stephen V. (885-891). These two volumes contain the lives of the Popes during the period of the Carolingian Empire, i.e. for practically the ninth century, and deal with such important events as the revival of the empire of the west, the career of Photius and the Greek Schism, and the conversion of the Bulgarians and the Slavs.

"The Rev. Horace K. Mann's 'Lives of the Popes in the Early Middle Ages' have now reached the third volume, and it may at once be said that the present instalment, which covers almost the second half of the ninth century, maintains the high standard which Mr. Mann set before him at the beginning of his task, and shows fully the dispassionate reasoning of an impartial critic, as well as the clear, lucid style of a well-read scholar." — Daily Telegraph.

Vols. IV. and V. contain the biographies of the Popes who filled the chair of Peter during the tenth century and the first half of the eleventh. Of these biographies that of Pope Formosus is the first, and that of Damasus II. the last. The period which they cover is the darkest in the long history of Rome. It was a period of feudal anarchy, when barons lorded it over Pope and people. For that very reason it is not wanting in dramatic interest, and if the reigns of many of the Popes are very short and of but little importance, that of Gerbert, Sylvester II., is almost enough to redeem the others.

These two volumes are illustrated by maps, etc.

THE HISTORY OF THE POPES. By Dr. Ludwig Pastor. Translated from the German by Frederic I. Antrobus. Vols. I. to VI. Vols. VII. and VIII. translated by the Rev. Ralph Kerr. Demy 8vo. Per vol. 12s. net.

" We can only hope that Pastor's ' Lives of the Popes ' will find their way not only into our Public Libraries, but also into the hands of every student of history, whether Catholic or Protestant. For the historian of the close of the Middle Ages onward the volumes of Pastor are an absolute necessity. . . . Those who will but taste and see will find the pages of Pastor as interesting as any novel." — Tablet.

THE BEGINNINGS OF THE TEMPORAL SOVE- REIGNTY OF THE POPES, a.d. 754-1073. By Mgr. L. Duchesne, D.D. (Director of the Ecole Franchise at Rome). Authorised translation from the French by A. H. Mathew. Demy 8vo. (International Catholic Library.) 7s. 6d.

CHURCHES SEPARATED FROM ROME. By Mgr. L. Duchesne, D.D. Authorised translation by A. H. Mathew. Demy 8vo. (International Catholic Library.) 6s.

HISTORY OF THE GERMAN PEOPLE

AT THE

CLOSE OF THE MIDDLE AGES.

By JOHANNES JANSSEN.

Vols. I. and II. translated by M. A. Mitchell and A. M. Christie.

Vols. III. to XIV. translated by A. M. Christie.

Demy Svo, cloth. Price 2$s. per two volumes.

CONTENTS.

Vol. I. — Intellectual Conditions of Germany at the Close of the Middle Ages. Popular Education and Science. Art and Popular Literature. Political Economy. /L

Vol. II. — Political Economy — continued.

The Holy Roman Empire : Its Relation to Foreign Countries — Its Constitution — Its Laws. Vol. III. — The Revolution Party and its Proceedings up to the Diet of Worms in 1521. The Diet of Worms and the Progress of the Politico-Clerical Revolution up to the Outbreak of the Social Revolution, 1521-1524. Vol. IV.— The Diet of Worms and the Progress of the Politico-Clerical Revolution up to the Outbreak of the Social Revolution, 1 521- 1524 — continued. The Social Revolution. Vol. V. — Propagation and Systematising of the New Doctrine up to the Foundation of the Smalcald League, 1531. The Smalcald League. VOL. VI. — The Smalcald League — continued.

The Smalcadian War and Internal Disintegration down to the so-called Religious Peace of Nuremburg, 1546-1555. Vol. VII. — Politico-Religious Party Struggles from the time of the Ausburg Religious Peace up to the End of the Grumbach-Gotha Conspiracy in 1567. Vol. VIII. — Influence of French Calvinism and Success of the International Revolutionary Party during a Period of increasing National Weak- ness, 1 567-1 575. Catholic Reform Lal>ours and Counteracting Influences down to the Proclamation of the Formulary of Concord in 1580. Vol. IX. — Advancing Disintegration of the Empire and growing Sectarian

Bitterness up to the Formation of the Union in 1608. Vol. X. — The Influence of Religious Controversy on the People and on the Empire up to the year 1618. General Political Confusion in the Decade preceding the Thirty Years' War. Vols. XI. and XII.— Civilisation and Culture of the German People from the End of the Middle Ages to the Beginning of the Thirty Years' War. Vols. XIII. and XIV. — Schools and Universities, Science, Learning, and Culture down to the Beginning of the Thirty Years' War.

Each volume contains an Index of Places and an Index of Persons.

•uioo aqj jo azis [BtipB aqj sMoqs ajjuao aqi ui SuiMujp aqx

(•ubdi;^ aqi ui uioo sqi jo jsud b uioj^)

•II Ibhdsbj jo 11103 n*uis

01

IN THE DARK AGE.

(ifiy) 1XV tl\e Porta PoH-ucnsia

TENTH CENTURY,

AND THE

nRSTHALFOPTHE

ELEVENTH,

Dm Roman Numerals JrXIVsnowfhe •

localities of the fourteen Tedious ofAgustus

'Ihe large capita I.s A~ C show Hi i- areas of the seven ecclesiastical regions

Scale: ABOUT 6 40 YARDS tothi INCH

BX 1070 M36 v.4

Mann, Horace Kinder

The lives of the Popes

PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY